Simviation Forums

Is it true? I realy don't know if it cessna but i saw in a magazine where they mentioned something about model parachutes includes,if it is true ,why they haven't develope for passeger aircraft,jumbo i mean the heavy ones,could avoid so many death in aircraft accidents,
I know sounds crazy,but some day the youngest here will remember me

Last I heard, the Cessna size parachutes were successful, and NASA was testing/developing the Biggie Sized ones.

Even if this technology goes off without a snag (no pun intended ), it a very different thing if it'll be implemented.  All hail the almighty Dollar.

Small matter of scale, err just how heavy do you think a fully laden 747 is? And just how big a set of 'chutes would it need? And how much room would they occupy?

Ballistic parachutes are already available, and fitted as an option, to small GA aircraft...(Diamond aircraft)...?

Very successful, and saved both the crew and the aircraft... ...!

Paul.

http://brsparachutes.com/

Chutes on an airliner would weigh tons, first of all.  Second, the airlines are in no position right now to add much of anything to their fleet.  Third, the cost would be ridiculous, and passengers don't want to spend extra money on ANYTHING...this has been proven again and again in the post 9/11 world.  

Most importantly, as long as the wings and tail remain intact, and airliner can fly an average of 100 miles with no power...chances are there's SOMEWHERE he could land within this radius, overwater flights notwithstanding.

I'm guessing for an airline chute to take effect it would have to be the size of a small town mayby more  ::)

...in Ozzy's case it would protect the aircraft from crashing "upwards"... ..... ....!

LOL...!

Paul.

Ballistic parachutes work well on Ultralights and small GA aircraft, (Cirrus?)....
...but only when they are flown upright... ...!
LOL...!

[quote] I'm guessing for an airline chute to take effect it would have to be the size of a small town mayby more

ALROT...!
There is someone out there in deep space, looking down through that big red telescope and putting all these fancy ideas in your head...>>>



It will all end in tears...trust me... ...!

LOL...LOL...LOL... ...!

Cheers ALROT... ...!

Paul.

I dunno.

NASA was supposedly developing it, perhaps they're only looking to slow jumbos down to minimize damage/injuries rather than let them float down.  Quite frankly, I think jumbos are in bigger need of countermeasures than parachutes.  And in all truthful reality, they don't need those either.

ALROT...!
There is someone out there in deep space, looking down through that big red telescope and putting all these fancy ideas in your head...>>>



It will all end in tears...trust me... ...!

LOL...LOL...LOL... ...!

Cheers ALROT... ...!

Paul.

.....lol...lol

Hmm, if they could develope an effective parachute for jumbos then supposedly they could do away with all (non parachute related at least) safety regs.  Who cares about having reliable engines (for example) if safety is just a rip cord away.  Perhaps this is a way for airlines to get more miles out of their used up aircraft.  Fly 'em till the wings fall off, then pull the chute.

A chute for an airliner would just need to be big enough to sustain it and basicallym, turn it into a beeeeeg para-glider!

The thing about fitting it on big heavies is there is a point of diminishing returns. In other words, planes can be equipped with heavier and more expensive equipment, thus increasing flight ticket costs (because of aircraft fuel consumption, weight etc.), maintenance becomes lengthier and more people decide to drive to holidays. More people therefore die because you are way more likely to die in a car crash than in a plane (more people drown in their bathtubs every year than in airplane crashes). There is very small chance you will die in a large commercial airliner crash. Also, I recomment 'the flying book' by David Blatner, very interesting read.

The thing about fitting it on big heavies is there is a point of diminishing returns. In other words, planes can be equipped with heavier and more expensive equipment, thus increasing flight ticket costs (because of aircraft fuel consumption, weight etc.), maintenance becomes lengthier and more people decide to drive to holidays.

But with a parachute you don't have to worry about maintaining the plane, just wait for it to brake, parachute down, and fix it.  You don't need to train your pilots, just have a guy who sits in the cockpit and pulls the chute if anything goes wrong.  You don't need to have more than one engine on the plane.  If that engine goes out just pull the chute.

So, the weight of the 2nd engine is now replaced by the chute, your pilot is earning minimum wage, and you have no maintenance staff.  Planes don't have to be made to be reliable so they don't have to be made well.  Shoddy off shore workmanship will do just fine (imagine how cheaply Nike could slap together a plane).  And as long as your passengers arrive more or less unharmed at their destination at least 90% of the time everyone's happy, right?