>> ^Entropy001:
WTF?!!!!!!! Why the fuck don't we have all planes equipped with full-plane parachute systems?


In short, the CAA (in the UK) make in unbeliverbly expensive to fit these to your aircraft.

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
To end all debate above!!
--Just invest in a personal parachute and sit close to the emergency exit. When the shit hits the propeller, Bail out! It would also be in your best interest to exit with a great catch phrase.


Good luck opening the door on a pressurized cabin...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
In many of the situations were a parachute might have been useful in these accidents, the plane breaks up in mid air, making it moot
And like someone pointed out, a good majority of crashes happen on take off and landing where chutes would be relatively useless


yea most crashes happen at take off or landing, the majority of the rest happen because the pilots fly the plane in a mountain or something, most mechanical failures either kills you on takeoff, makes the plane explode or is fairly easy to recover from so you can do an emergency landing.
But almost all crashes today are due to human error in one form or another, so the planes doesn't need parachutes, it needs to get rid of the pilots and in some places their operators.

Yay, thanks for the doublepromote!

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
*doublepromote

Your video, Real Aircraft Loses Wing, Lands Safely (Under Canopy), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

[redacted]

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute. Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.
It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system it has to be the primary case consideration and not added on as a periphery.
Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plain, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

>> ^EMPIRE:
Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.


Yeah, was thinking about that too. I think you'd need to anchor the majority of the chutes to where the wings connect with the fuselage. Thats where the weight of the aircraft is carried in flight, and I guess thats the best place to balance the weight between front and back. You'd then need sort of guide shoots at the tail and nose to correct its pitch. Even then, if you lose a wing like this plane did, and your not going in nose first then I think the next problem is rolling...

basically, rocket boosters aren'y too concerned about which way they fall, as long as its slowly.

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute (also note that empty rocket boosters are much lighter than full rocket boosters). Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.

It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system has to be the primary methodology and not added on as a periphery.

Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plane, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

I would wager even if such a system could be made to work, cases that it could be made for would be less than 1% of crashes that occur. Getting smashes by weather, misdirected my flight control or TCAS or some other human error, or the dozens of other common flight disasters would be helped little by a functional parachute system.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.

>> ^Xax:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I have no idea why not... But it should be fucking mandatory.
No, it should certainly not. There are too many nannystates in the world as it is.


That is so moronic, I don't even know what to say. I'm sure you feel car safety regulation is also a bad thing.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I have no idea why not... But it should be fucking mandatory.
There's no good excuse not to have this on all smaller planes and gliders. I doubt the extra couple of thousands dollars I'm guessing this system could cost, isn't too expensive if it can save your life.
I also always wondered as well why commercial passanger planes couldn't have a similar system installed (yes I know they travel much faster, but still there has to be a way).


Rans S-9 Chaos gross weight: 700 lbs.
747 gross weight: Around 650,000 lbs.

It's not the speed difference that prevents parachute systems from being used on commercial airliners, it's the massive weights.


Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I have no idea why not... But it should be fucking mandatory.

No, it should certainly not. There are too many nannystates in the world as it is.

[redacted]

>> ^cybrbeast:

This is definitely going into my watch when tripping folder


One of my fondest hallucination memories: sitting under a tall tree in a park late at night, the only sound was that almost magical white noise rushing through leaves, and I was at the peak of an LSD trip, having just inhaled some nitrous oxide. I lay down and looked up, and the canopy of the tree was silhouetted against the sky. The entire view turned into a 3-dimensional animated fractal set for a good minute or so.

Words probably can't convey the amalgamation of sensory experience that made that moment so exhilarating, but a part of this video triggered that memory quite strongly for me. Makes me want to trip again (it's been a long time).

>> ^ElessarJD:
As the jaguar stares up at the jungle's canopy, it thinks to itself... "Is this real life?"


or "why is this happening to me?"

As the jaguar stares up at the jungle's canopy, it thinks to itself... "Is this real life?"

i think that was intentional as the pilot's reaction was really up to the difficult situation in which he found himself. most reserve chutes used this days have a gunpowder charge which shoots out the reserve parachute with high enough velocity and force to penetrate the fabric of the main canopy, should you find yourself in the situation where you get tangled up in the main parachute and can't throw away the reserve manually. when you find yourself in trouble at a very low altitude such as this, you usually have only seconds to react and then it's only experience and training that can save your life