Something for small plane DZs?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&ncid=738&e=3&u=/ap/20041222/ap_on_hi_te/airplane_parachutes

Parachute System Can Save Small Planes

By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON - Albert Kolk's small plane banked uncontrollably in darkness over the Monashee mountains, then began spiraling. "Seat belts!" he barked to his teenage grandson and two young friends. Then he reached for a red lever in the cockpit. Suddenly, an orange-and-white parachute as big as a house opened above the plane and gently landed his stricken aircraft in a rocky clearing.

If the maker of the parachute that saved Kolk's life this past spring succeeds, one day commercial aircraft like regional commuter jets may have similar safety systems. First, though, there's the challenge of creating a parachute robust enough to rescue bigger, faster planes.

"Weight and speed are always the challenge," acknowledged Robert Nelson, chairman of Ballistic Recovery Systems Inc., which sold about 500 of its $16,000 parachute systems this year for use by small private planes and pilots like Kolk.

The company's most advanced parachute right now can accommodate nearly 4,000 pounds. While small planes can weigh up to 2,000 pounds and cruise about 175 miles per hour, regional jets weigh 80,000 pounds and fly at more than 600 miles per hour.

That's why Ballistic Recovery Systems is working with NASA — which gave it $670,000 for research — to design a new generation of emergency parachutes that would work on small jets and could be steered by pilots as they drift to the ground.

Kolk, a rancher who was piloting his private plane April 8 from Seattle to his ranch in British Columbia, remembered reaching for the parachute handle as his plane slipped into a dangerous flat spin over the mountains in British Columbia, "like how a dog chases its tail."

A seasoned pilot, Kolk said he had never experienced such a disaster in over a decade of private flying.

"I knew I was in trouble. I couldn't straighten out," Kolk said. "When that chute opened, it was a peaceful, wonderful feeling."

Kolk's experience is one of four cases where parachute-equipped planes landed safely beneath a canopy since U.S. regulators approved the system six years ago. Ballistic Recovery Systems, based in St. Paul, Minn., says eight lives were saved in those four incidents, plus dozens of other people in accidents involving smaller parachute-equipped ultralight planes that resemble motorized gliders.

The parachute, stored behind the rear seats in small planes, is fired with a rocket through the rear windshield; it's attached with high-strength lines to the plane's wings, nose and tail.

They are increasingly popular among private pilots, and for good reason: The government said 626 people died in general aviation crashes in 2003, compared with 81 people aboard commercial airlines.

Aviation experts question whether parachutes will ever be attached to the largest passenger jets, such as the Boeing 747, which weighs more than 900,000 pounds. "The speed and weight of those planes would seem to preclude a system like that," said James Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Most of the estimated 500 parachute systems Ballistic Recovery Systems sold in 2004 went to aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Design Corp. of Duluth, Minn., which includes them as standard equipment on its line of small private planes. U.S. regulations allow owners of some Cessna small planes to install parachutes, but only about a dozen have bought the add-on equipment so far.

Brent Brown, a lawyer in Roanoke, Va., was having one added to his plane. Brown, who often flies twice a week over the mountains in western Virginia, said he couldn't imagine choosing to save money by not adding the new safety equipment. "I would feel awful silly on that terrible, terrible ride down," Brown said.

The emergency parachutes aren't flawless. Two families in Syracuse, N.Y., are suing Cirrus, Ballistic Recovery Systems and others for a combined $67.5 million over a fatal crash in April 2002. The case is pending in federal court.

The families said the pilot, a plastic surgeon who bought the plane six days earlier, tried to open the parachute but it failed. Defense lawyers have denied the system malfunctioned, and federal investigators concluded the parachute never opened "for undetermined reasons."

In another accident, one month before the Syracuse crash, pilot Paul Heflin of Lexington, Ky., repeatedly pulled hard on the parachute handle when his plane began a steep, uncontrolled dive from 3,000 feet. "He was pulling for his life," recalled Heflin's passenger, Benjamin Ditty. Both suffered minor injuries but walked away from the wreckage.

The parachute popped open just after the plane crashed, "which was not too convenient for us," Ditty said. Months after Heflin's crash, Cirrus ordered all its customers to immediately replace a vital cable in the parachute system.

Heflin said he still has faith in the parachute, but Ditty — who also flies — said he would never rely on one again. "It was supposed to work," he said.

Some pilots insist they'll never fly without a parachute.

"People are crazy not to fly with them," said William Graham of San Diego, an instructor pilot whose plane landed beneath a parachute this spring near Stockton, Calif., after it unexpectedly flipped upside down at 16,000 feet. Graham, who was flying with his wife, Barbara, said they drifted onto a farm field so gently the landing didn't break fragile Christmas ornaments and glass bottles aboard the plane.

___

On the Net:

Video of the parachute is available at:

http://wid.ap.org/video/video/airplanechute.rm

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Hazarrd 1]

very cool....

.-.

[WFFC 1]

Ummm...probably not. We're just getting back online now from losing an engine in June (read: Sunny's fault since she made me go).

-----
~~~Michael

[sunshine 2]

Quote

Ummm...probably not. We're just getting back online now from losing an engine in June (read: Sunny's fault since she made me go).

I still think us 4 should get the first jump with the new engine. We got robbed on altitude last time.

___________________________________________
meow

I get a Mike hug! I get a Mike hug!

[WFFC 1]

Quote

I still think us 4 should get the first jump with the new engine. We got robbed on altitude last time.

I agree, and I paid for a full lift after the fact. What was I thinking? Ron needs to fly too...

-----
~~~Michael

[Ron 10]

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/safety/caps/

Also the cost of the only Airplane that is certified with a BRS starts at 189,000 and tops at 444,100

The cost of the BRS for a Cessna 182 is 16,995.00 (and I don't think its available yet.) Also look at the attached pic. It will take up room inside the plane meaning that you might not be able to fit 4 anymore. Puls it weighs close to 70 pounds. The weight should not be an issue, but the space will be.

17,000 to add a device that wil limit the amount of people you can carry is not a good dusinesss choice.

PLUS, a day VFR flight close to an airport (Which is what a jump ship does) an engine out is not a dire emergency.

List of uses from the BRS press release:

POSSIBLE PARACHUTE USAGE SCENARIOS


1. Mid-air Collision (loss of integrity or control)
2. Severe Weather Upset (wind shear, turbulence)
3. Power Loss With Poor Visibility (night or IMC)
4. Loss of Control (component failure or jam)
5. Engine Out Over Hostile (unlandable) Terrain
6. Structural Failure (age-weakened parts)
7. Pilot Medical Trauma (heart attack)
8. Overstress (due to aerobatics, violent weather)

5 of those could be a problem in a jump aircraft.
Most of those 5 can be better fixed by being aware and good maintenance.

Still at a cost of almost 17 grand and the loss of space is causes, I doubt most DZ's would buy into it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[gerrcoin 0]

The BRS system is intended as a life saving device rather than an aircraft saving device (although it may do both) as the landing impact may write-off the a/c even though passengers walk away. In the case of paradrop ops it is not really as neccessary as for GA, as everyone on board has, or should have, their own parachute. It would however limit the danger of an abandoned a/c over a populated area and also provide the pilot with another option in the event of a spin on the jump run. These two reasons alone make it a definate consideration.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

The BRS system is intended as a life saving device rather than an aircraft saving device (although it may do both) as the landing impact may write-off the a/c even though passengers walk away. In the case of paradrop ops it is not really as neccessary as for GA, as everyone on board has, or should have, their own parachute. It would however limit the danger of an abandoned a/c over a populated area and also provide the pilot with another option in the event of a spin on the jump run. These two reasons alone make it a definate consideration.

If the plane becomes uncontrollable during jump run, your chances of getting out would be slim. It only takes less then 1 G and you will not be able to get up to get out. As far as abandoning an aircraft over a populated area, you should not be flying jump run over a populated area to begin with.

FYI: The canopies for the systems are manufactured by a jumper in Elsinore. Gary Douris, owner of Free Flight.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

PLUS, a day VFR flight close to an airport (Which is what a jump ship does) an engine out is not a dire emergency.

Lots of dead skydivers would disagree with that statement, if they could. Engine out shortly after takeoff is a dire emergency (not that a BRS would help much).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

In the case of paradrop ops it is not really as neccessary as for GA, as everyone on board has, or should have, their own parachute. It would however limit the danger of an abandoned a/c over a populated area and also provide the pilot with another option in the event of a spin on the jump run. These two reasons alone make it a definate consideration.

And the 17,000 price tag and the fact it limits the usefull load by reducing the number of people it can take...Make it so it is not a great idea, and will not get much support.

Lets see it costs half of what a jumpship costs, and makes it so I can only carry three people.

I would not buy one.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Lots of dead skydivers would disagree with that statement, if they could. Engine out shortly after takeoff is a dire emergency (not that a BRS would help much).

Well if the BRS will not help it is not much good.

And an engine out Day VFR is not a DIRE emergency. I have seen and had an engine out on takeoff. As long as you remain calm, most times its just a pain, and no one dies.

Dire Emergency is the tail getting ripped off....Which this would help, but the fact it costs half what a jumpship costs, and reduced the number of jumpers you can take tells me most small DZ's will not get one.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[pilotdave 0]

Not to mention the seating conditions in a jump plane. Compare the seats in a Cirrus with the floor of a 182. "Hard landing" has a different definition for each of them. The floor of an aircraft isn't a nice place to be in a hard vertical impact.

But I agree about BRS chutes in Cessnas. Cessnas are not prone to structural failure like an ultralight. BRS chutes do make sense for pilots that constantly fly over rough terrain though. I'd prefer a controlled landing in a field after an engine failure than taking my chances with a BRS system. But if I was over mountains, it'd be a different story.

Dave

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Lots of dead skydivers would disagree with that statement, if they could. Engine out shortly after takeoff is a dire emergency (not that a BRS would help much).

Well if the BRS will not help it is not much good.

And an engine out Day VFR is not a DIRE emergency. I have seen and had an engine out on takeoff. As long as you remain calm, most times its just a pain, and no one dies.

.

Do you know how many skydivers have been killed on account of engine failures? Just the Perris and Hinckley crashes alone killed dozens. How DIRE do you need to get?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gerrcoin 0]

Quote

If the plane becomes uncontrollable during jump run, your chances of getting out would be slim. It only takes less then 1 G and you will not be able to get up to get out.

Perhaps you mean 1g extra as we experience 1g normally. I've experienced 2g in an aircraft and although it would be difficult it would not be impossible to extract oneself, given enough time. I know what you are trying to say though and most spins would produce 3g+, so ...

Quote

From My post
....and also provide the pilot with another option in the event of a spin on the jump run.

Quote

As far as abandoning an aircraft over a populated area, you should not be flying jump run over a populated area to begin with.

There are many DZ's where residential areas would fall inside the range of an a/c abandoned from 10k. DeLand for example. Also consider Demos.

The system does have some practical uses in paradrop but these are negated by the high cost, both in hard cash and in a/c performance. It would become a definite consideration if these were reduced.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Perhaps you mean 1g extra as we experience 1g normally. I've experienced 2g in an aircraft and although it would be difficult it would not be impossible to extract oneself, given enough time. I know what you are trying to say though and most spins would produce 3g+, so ...

Yes, I did mean 1g over normal. Sorry.

I've been in 2 aircraft that have went into an uncontrolled flight mode during parachute test operations. As the jumpmaster/loadmaster on the flights I was at the open door both times. And in both incidents, if the pilots had not been able to recover, I would not have been able to get out. Scary.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Ron 10]

Quote

Do you know how many skydivers have been killed on account of engine failures? Just the Perris and Hinckley crashes alone killed dozens. How DIRE do you need to get?

Those were not Cessnas now were they?

So a BRS would not have helped.

As for the Perris crash, sumping the tanks during a preflight would have worked wonders.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Not to mention the seating conditions in a jump plane. Compare the seats in a Cirrus with the floor of a 182. "Hard landing" has a different definition for each of them. The floor of an aircraft isn't a nice place to be in a hard vertical impact.

Yeah thanks. I forgot about the seat in a Cirrus being part of the surviability of a BRS "save"

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnMitchell 16]

Do you know how many skydivers have been killed on account of engine failures? Just the Perris and Hinckley crashes alone killed dozens. How DIRE do you need to get?

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Do you know how many skydivers have been killed on account of engine failures? Just the Perris and Hinckley crashes alone killed dozens. How DIRE do you need to get?

Perhaps a better route than the BRS system, which wouldn't have helped in either of those crashes, would be better training of pilots, better use of seatbelts, and not overloading the aircraft (The Taft Twin Beech crash). Pilot error is still the overwhelming cause of most crashes.