Parachutes for aircraft
 

Is it just an urban myth that the technology exists for passenger a/c to be equipped with parachutes in case of an emergency?

No it is true. They have tried it but can't prove the reliability of the system. Rocket powered parachutes are not consistent enough.

Would really be nice, but the load s the chutes put ont he airframe in analysis would break it into pieces.

Maybe someday.

I'm sure I've seen pictures of it being tried on something like a C172. Jets would presumably be more of a challenge... :)

Try these:

http://www.dropzonepress.com/
http://www.msnbc.com/news/431474.asp

Not quite passenger jets, but successfully implemented in light a/c

http://209.238.147.86/BRS.HTML

Thankyou everybody

I was expecting the usual backlash of "Go away with daft questions", only this was something someone asked me & I didn't know the answer.

I knew it had been developed for GA. I just thought the extra weight penalty would rule it out of airline service.

Would this technology have helped in the last crop of accidents.

A more sensible route must be the fine tuning of an already good system.
Aircrew training and management(sleep!)
Modern aircraft systems and warnings which make them more CFIT resistant.
ATC and proceedures etc,etc..

Just a thought but how many instances have happened where, given sufficient time would parachutes in "Airliners" been used with obvious benefits?

I have often wondered at the feasibility of constructing airliners with the passenger section as a complete 'pallet' which gets loaded into the aircraft...

It could be cleaned, catered, baggage packed, boarded, all off the apron, then simply loaded into the aircraft Galaxy-style. In an emergency, it could be ejected out of the back, and descend under canopies, Apollo-style...

An advantage would be, unload one pallet and load the next, and you´re off....the pax and bags and catering and loo's etc ...all taken off your hands in one fell swoop..

Pallets could be pax or cargo..the idea is, they are all prepacked & self contained.

I've thought exactly the same thing, Stonebird!

Would have to overcome possible weight / drag penalties in the pod retaining mechanism.

I imagine that there would be certification requirements for a guaranteed reliability of the retention mechanism not 'letting go' at an inappropriate time. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/redface.gif

Still, some helicopters have had similar eg the skycrane or whatever it was called, so it's not impossible.

I think it has been done.
http://www.thunderbirdsonline.com/04...ch_r03_c02.gif

Stonebird & Tinstaafl, International Rescue have been doing something similar for years with Thunderbird 2 (as discussed on a previous thread - can't find it at the moment) :)

Edited to acknowledge hassel's faster keyboard skills and better /img manipulation.

[This message has been edited by ANOpax (edited 14 June 2001).]

There is already a light aircraft in production with a parachute system:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com

I've flown several small aircraft with them fitted - a huge confidence booster during flight testing. I should say that I could, but haven't, fitted them on my own aircraft. If on the other hand I was routinely flying over mountains, sea or forest in single engined aircraft I'd seriously consider spending the money. (About £1500 for a system for a small 2-seater).

I think that they are available up to about C172 size. The biggest manufacturer is BRS ( http://www.airplaneparachutes.com/ ). They do work (I have a friend whose life was saved by one to prove it) but the task of installation in an aircraft is far from trivial.

http://www.airplaneparachutes.com/GARDE.JPG

G


[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 14 June 2001).]

I find it an a problem with BRS's system that it was able to get certification without landing the a/c using the system. I recall reading that all flight tests were terminated with the a/c being released from the parachute & flying away.

Doesn't give me too much confidence compared to landing under my own control.

I can see how this sort of equipment can save lives but I'm loathe to trust it until it has been fully tested.

Yes, but I think the point is that you'd only consider using it if landing under your own control ceased to be an option.

G

Just curious Ghenghis, what was your friend's experience? I'm not asking to argue about the certification process, but I'm interested in how the system actually worked in an emergency situation.

As recounted to me, the person in question was (some years ago) flying a rather dubious early microlight in France [A Quicksilver I believe]. They suffered a structural failure (not sadly that uncommon pre-Section S) and pulled the handle at a 1000ft or so. They ended up in a field, with a wrecked aeroplane, and walked away un-injured.

My experience of the installations, is that they are always designed such that the aircraft comes down gear-first, providing a lot of shock absorbtion on impact.

On the subject of the certification process, it is true that at-least in the UK, they are certified on the basis that they mustn't endanger the aircraft if not used. I know that designers make sure that they are satisfied it will save lives, but CAA approval hasn't required this. I've no idea what the FAA position is, anybody know?

G

[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 15 June 2001).]

Thanks!