Has anyone ever escaped a burning skyscraper using a parachute?

[scamartistry]

Has this ever happened?

[Eats_Crayons]

Successfully or like Wile E. Coyote?

[Exapno Mapcase]

We had several threads about escape mechanisms after 9/11. Parachutes kept getting suggested, but IIRC, the consensus was that the lack of height and the strange updrafts that skyscrapers create would make them far too dangerous a way to escape even in an emergency.

A few base jumpers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_jumping) have parachuted off skyscrapers.

In May 2008, Hervé Le Gallou and an unnamed British man, dressed as engineers, illegally infiltrated Burj Khalifa, the tallest man-made structure in the world (around 650m at the time), and jumped off a balcony situated a couple of floors below the 160th floor.[2][3]

On 8 January 2010, Nasr Al Niyadi and Omar Al Hegelan, from the Emirates Aviation Society, broke the world record for the highest building BASE jump after they leapt from a crane suspended platform attached to Burj Khalifa's 160th floor at 672 metres (2,205 ft).[6]
The Burj Khalifa is uniquely tall. The heights given are around twice that of the World Trade Center Tower burning floors. I'm sure that helped. And the lack of heated air updrafts I'm sure also helped.

[Eats_Crayons]

We had several threads about escape mechanisms after 9/11. Parachutes kept getting suggested, but IIRC, the consensus was that the lack of height and the strange updrafts that skyscrapers create would make them far too dangerous a way to escape even in an emergency.

A few base jumpers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_jumping) have parachuted off skyscrapers.
On base jumping sites, it says it takes 2-5 seconds for a parachute to deploy completely. So the building has to be not only far enough away from other buildings for the canopy to fully open, but also high enough for it to open AND decelerate you. That would be possible in some of the big skyscrapers that are NOT close to other buildings. You would also need to have reliable equipment that has not deteriorated over time. It's not like an untrained person could put on a parachute that had been sitting in a closet for 5 years. An experience base jumper with a freshly packed chute could managed from whatever the minimum height would be - depending on the cite you read 250-500 feet - but your average office worker jumping out of a 15th floor window - approximately 150-200 feet - would be likely be pavement pizza.

[Xema]

the building has to be not only far enough away from other buildings for the canopy to fully open...
Tall buildings so close together as to not allow room for a parachute to open have to be tolerably rare.

You would also need to have reliable equipment that has not deteriorated over time. It's not like an untrained person could put on a parachute that had been sitting in a closet for 5 years.
If stored under favorable conditions, a modern parachute would probably open about as reliably after a decade as after a few days.

An experienced rigger from the Strong parachute company (http://www.strongparachutes.com/) told me that of the 5000+ rigs he's handled - including some whose cards indicated had not been repacked for many years - about 5 were in a condition that he judged would have made them truly unlikely to open.

That said, if you were BASE jumping from a marginal height you'd want everything about the rig to be in tip-top shape. OTOH, if you were trapped above a fire in a tall building, your standards might not be as high.

[code_grey]

how about if (counterfactually) there were a catapult device on the roof to throw you upwards and away from the building, like a missile? Would you survive the sort of acceleration involved in getting you high up enough in the air to safely land with your parachute?

[outlierrn]

They can static line a base jump rig for a more rookie proof opening, steering/landing is probably going to be the more dangerous part. Plus that whole fire/smoke/turbulence thing. I would not be enthusiastic about jumping with billowing smoke and fire fighting going on, unless, ya know, the fire was about to reach me.


I googled one site that said the lowest recorded base jump was 29 meters, talk about a pucker factor!

[[Undecided] Adrian]

I haven't made a jump so far, though I wear a parachute regularly in my glider. If there was an emergency there, I figure the probability of a successful egress would be about 50%, so it's not like you can depend on it.

If I worked high up in a skyscraper, I would keep an old parachute in a closet. I think the odds wouldn't be great if you jump, but it would be the last desperate option.
With a normal emergency chute, you need like 150 m / 500 ft for it to open. A static line helps with that, but you probably wouldn't want that because it would open it too close to the building. I'd try for a good running start in order to avoid smashing into the side of the building.

[robby]

There's a much easier and safer way to get out of skyscraper than a parachute.

In this week's Newsweek magazine, there is a column entitled "A Eureka Moment in the Middle of a Nightmare (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/04/my-turn-9-11-the-jumpers-and-a-rescue-reel.html)."

In it, the author, a self-described inventor and orthopedic surgeon details his design for his Rescue Reel (http://www.rescuereel.com/). Popular Science named it a 2009 Invention of the Year. (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-05/great-escape)

The 100-story model weighs less than 20 pounds, fits in a filing cabinet, and includes a 1,000 foot cord with an automatic braking system, so that (assuming you can make it out a window), you would descend at a rate of about 2 stories per second. The device would have allowed a user to descend from the upper floors of the Twin Towers in about 4 minutes. It is expected to cost about $1,500, and the inventor is currently working on production and distribution.

One drawback is that it is apparently a single-use device, but then again, so is a parachute.

[EdwardLost]

How about a parachute that would fly open when released - like one of those pop-up tents.

[Xema]

One drawback is that it is apparently a single-use device, but then again, so is a parachute.
Howzat? Parachutes get reused many times.

[GreedySmurf]

There's a much easier and safer way to get out of skyscraper than a parachute.

In this week's Newsweek magazine, there is a column entitled "A Eureka Moment in the Middle of a Nightmare (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/04/my-turn-9-11-the-jumpers-and-a-rescue-reel.html)."

In it, the author, a self-described inventor and orthopedic surgeon details his design for his Rescue Reel (http://www.rescuereel.com/). Popular Science named it a 2009 Invention of the Year. (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-05/great-escape)

The 100-story model weighs less than 20 pounds, fits in a filing cabinet, and includes a 1,000 foot cord with an automatic braking system, so that (assuming you can make it out a window), you would descend at a rate of about 2 stories per second. The device would have allowed a user to descend from the upper floors of the Twin Towers in about 4 minutes. It is expected to cost about $1,500, and the inventor is currently working on production and distribution.

One drawback is that it is apparently a single-use device, but then again, so is a parachute.

Interesting idea, but I wonder how effective it would be in a WTC situation, where if you were on the upper floors you would have to descend past 3-4 stories where there is thick black (probably toxic) smoke pouring out and I'm presuming the heat coming out of the building in that band of burning stories would be pretty intense.

[robby]

One drawback is that it is apparently a single-use device, but then again, so is a parachute.
Howzat? Parachutes get reused many times.Not in the same disaster scenario.

I imagine that it might be possible to design a reel device to retract the cord or cable so that it could be used by another person. However, there's no way to get a parachute that's been used repacked and back up to the 100th story for the next user.

[robby]

Interesting idea, but I wonder how effective it would be in a WTC situation, where if you were on the upper floors you would have to descend past 3-4 stories where there is thick black (probably toxic) smoke pouring out and I'm presuming the heat coming out of the building in that band of burning stories would be pretty intense.I think it would be preferable to take my chances rather than burn up or take a 100-story swan dive.

In any event, you'd be descending through the smoke pretty rapidly. At the stated descent rate of 2 stories per second, you'd be exposed to the smoke for just 2 seconds for the 3-4 stories you mention. Hopefully the heat from the fire wouldn't damage the cord.

Also, presumably the fire and smoke would be pouring primarily out of one side of the building. You can choose which side of the building you make your exit from, and ideally you wouldn't pick the side of the building belching flame and smoke.

[TriPolar]

There must be a number of ways to do so. The most successful methods will involve being on the lower floors of the skyscraper when it catches fire, or managing to get there from the upper floors. For example you could throw the parachute through a glass window to avoid cutting yourself. You could also place an undeployed parachute over the jagged glass to prevent getting cut as you go through the window. You could pull out the parachute, and double the material over several times for the same purpose. You could pull out the parachute, tie the harness to something fixed or heavy in the building, throw the rest out the window, and rappel down the cords, and the parachute material. You could write a message to the fire department on the parachute and throw it out the window in the vicinity of fireman who could send a ladder up to get you. You could stand on a parachute to reach a window that is a little too high. It's likely there are a number of ways to escape a burning skyscraper using a barometer as well.

[EvilTOJ]

how about if (counterfactually) there were a catapult device on the roof to throw you upwards and away from the building, like a missile? Would you survive the sort of acceleration involved in getting you high up enough in the air to safely land with your parachute?

Why hasn't this been worked into a Very Special Wipeout episode?

[casdave]

Tower crane drivers have an evacuation system that consists of body harness and decelarated line, they can get to ground safely and quickly.

[pudytat72]

What happens when 50 or 100 or 200 people are all trying to jump out of a burning building using their parachute? Jumping out on different floors, coming down at different times and speeds. As you are gently floating down, someone jumps out just below you and their parachute comes up and gets tangled in your parachute. . .

Similar problem with the "Rescue Reel". Less likely to get the lines tangled, but equally likely to have contact with other people who are doing the same thing. They need to show that many people from many floors can get down safely at the same time.

(similar thoughts regarding the "Segway"-great if there are only one or two of them-gridlock if there are 50-100-200 of them. Similar to on a freeway, some people going really slow, some wanting to go as fast as they can-both getting pissed off at each other.)

[treis]

We had several threads about escape mechanisms after 9/11. Parachutes kept getting suggested, but IIRC, the consensus was that the lack of height and the strange updrafts that skyscrapers create would make them far too dangerous a way to escape even in an emergency.


Wouldn't an updraft help you? It certainly would give your shoot greater drag, and thus less likely you would go splat. Obviously unpredictable winds aren't exactly a good thing for a parachuter, but so long as I don't end up back in the burning building, I would be pretty much cool going anywhere.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Wouldn't an updraft help you? It certainly would give your shoot greater drag, and thus less likely you would go splat. Obviously unpredictable winds aren't exactly a good thing for a parachuter, but so long as I don't end up back in the burning building, I would be pretty much cool going anywhere.

Not if "anywhere" involves slamming into a neighboring building.

[Xema]

What happens when 50 or 100 or 200 people are all trying to jump out of a burning building using their parachute?
I'd say it's reasonably clear that parachutes are not a practical way for meaningful numbers of people to escape a burning building.

They need to show that many people from many floors can get down safely at the same time.
All they really need to show is that the number of injuries & fatalities is less than without the Rescue Reel.

[outlierrn]

Wouldn't an updraft help you? It certainly would give your shoot greater drag, and thus less likely you would go splat. Obviously unpredictable winds aren't exactly a good thing for a parachuter, but so long as I don't end up back in the burning building, I would be pretty much cool going anywhere.

You mean a broad steady consistent updraft, or a turbulent erratic one, such as you'd likely find in a burning skyscraper? The latter could easily collpase your chute and put you back into freefall.

[GreedySmurf]

Interesting idea, but I wonder how effective it would be in a WTC situation, where if you were on the upper floors you would have to descend past 3-4 stories where there is thick black (probably toxic) smoke pouring out and I'm presuming the heat coming out of the building in that band of burning stories would be pretty intense.I think it would be preferable to take my chances rather than burn up or take a 100-story swan dive.

In any event, you'd be descending through the smoke pretty rapidly. At the stated descent rate of 2 stories per second, you'd be exposed to the smoke for just 2 seconds for the 3-4 stories you mention. Hopefully the heat from the fire wouldn't damage the cord.

Also, presumably the fire and smoke would be pouring primarily out of one side of the building. You can choose which side of the building you make your exit from, and ideally you wouldn't pick the side of the building belching flame and smoke.

No doubt. almost anything is peferable to a 100 storey swan dive :p

I may be mistaken, but with the WTC, my memory seems to say that the smoke was pouring out on all four sides of the building.

I suppose with a rapid descent the smoke will hopefully not trouble you too much, but , again wit heh WTC case, the floors that were burning were pretty intense and I'd be interested to see some data on what the cable in those things is made from and how heat resistant they are.

In terms of the number of people evacuated, surely it wouldn't be too hard to put a small motor in that rescue reel thing to retrieve the cable to let multiple people use it.

As to the congestion issues, would you presume most highrises would give a couple of hours to evacuate. If you have 6-10 people coming down each side and a descent time of what 2 minutes, that'll get a lot of people out of the building.

[foolscap]

If you were really high up, you might get some use out of
a wing suit
This would get you out of the turbulent air around the skyscraper
and line you up on a good landing area before you had to pop
the chute.

[TriPolar]

Given the choice of jumping, burning to death, or using a parachute that may not help, I'll take a chance with the parachute.