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

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).

I saw a documentary about the brs, or well the people behind the idea and the company they formed, on discovery channel and they are/were working on getting systems working for planes as big as 747s iirc. It uses multiple stage parachutes and seems like a really cool product. I guess the reason why it isn't mandatory is the same as why airbags weren't mandatory when they were first invented. Give it time. Also I guess that a lot of people doesn't even know it exists yet.

Cost for such system ( Ballistic rescue parachutes ) are much more than just a few thousand dollars. When you get the FAA involved costs for a single bolt will skyrocket. In order to manufacture such a system for aircraft you must secure an STC from the FAA (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/stc/), this alone can cost the investor hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which he would have to pass along to the consumer. Each individual aircraft would need an STC as well if the system was not designed for that exact airframe. Cirrus aircraft all come with the CAPS system. http://cirrusaircraft.com/parachute/

[redacted]

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> Give it time.

man has been flying for 110 years

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.

>> ^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.

[redacted]

Ya, sorry lots of edits for clearing up thoughts. I need to stop posting first then editing. I was doing some googling on the rocket boosters and they are a poultry 80 thousand kilos. This plane is less than a ton fully loaded. The largest thing I have ever seen parachuted is an M-1 tank, and it is solid steal and there is no human inside...and it lands with a terrible ferocity. And it is only a 10th of the weight of a half laden 747. The likelihood of any system being able to work for anything other than these wings with engines strapped on them is unlikely. Moreover, not adding any real tangible safety to the plane. And realistically, adding one more point of failure in an already complex web of systems. If it were to accidentally deploy, it could turn minor incident into a catastrophic failure of the entire airframe.

[redacted]

here's another ballistic chute vid on the sift
http://videosift.com/video/Amazing-Airplane-Crash-Prevented
from inside the plane...

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, August 17th, 2010 12:09pm PDT - doublepromote requested by deathcow.

I don't think most commercial airline crashes would benefit from a parachute system like this. I imagine that most crashes are caused by engine malfunctions and or wing mechanical issues(flaps). In which case an emergency gliding landing on the planes belly is likely the standard protocol. A parachute system to help slow the plane once its crash landed on its belly would be beneficial I'd imagine.

I have zero basis for my comments just pure speculation.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

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

It is a novel idea, it just can't get off the ground for large planes (har har har)

>> ^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.

>> ^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...

Jetpacks are the future.

I opted not to quote everybody above but, I'm trying to imagine a 747 full of passengers, then suddenly it's dangling from a parachute... forget about speed and weight and tail strength, what happens to all the passengers?

Actually, costs for an 800 pound plane are $3,800 to $4,000 dollars based on the quotes from BRS Aviation here http://www.brsparachutes.com/full_price_list.aspx

I would not call that "much more" than a few thousand dollars. I realize there may be some additional installation costs, but still, we're talking far less than 10 thousand dollars.

>> ^AzPilot:

Cost for such system ( Ballistic rescue parachutes ) are much more than just a few thousand dollars. When you get the FAA involved costs for a single bolt will skyrocket. In order to manufacture such a system for aircraft you must secure an STC from the FAA (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/stc/), this alone can cost the investor hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which he would have to pass along to the consumer. Each individual aircraft would need an STC as well if the system was not designed for that exact airframe. Cirrus aircraft all come with the CAPS system. http://cirrusaircraft.com/parachute/

>> ^rychan:

Actually, costs for an 800 pound plane are $3,800 to $4,000 dollars based on the quotes from BRS Aviation here http://www.brsparachutes.com/full_price_list.aspx
I would not call that "much more" than a few thousand dollars. I realize there may be some additional installation costs, but still, we're talking far less than 10 thousand dollars.
>> ^AzPilot:
Cost for such system ( Ballistic rescue parachutes ) are much more than just a few thousand dollars. When you get the FAA involved costs for a single bolt will skyrocket. In order to manufacture such a system for aircraft you must secure an STC from the FAA (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/stc/), this alone can cost the investor hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which he would have to pass along to the consumer. Each individual aircraft would need an STC as well if the system was not designed for that exact airframe. Cirrus aircraft all come with the CAPS system. http://cirrusaircraft.com/parachute/



unfortunately thats only the tip of the iceberg. For a normal light aircraft cessna 172 style its more like $20000, plus fitting costs, plus paperwork and certification costs.