I did a search on ‘parachute’ and didn’t see a thread. Apologies if I missed it.
Pilot Pulls Parachute in Dramatic Plane Escape Over Ocean
A pilot ran out of fuel over 200 miles from Maui. He deployed the ballistic parachute, a feature of Cirrus aircraft, for a safe ditching. Good video from the USCG.
After ditching, the pilot climbed aboard his life raft and was rescued by a Holland America Line cruise ship.
one tv news said ran out of fuel.
another said he had fuel with fuel starvation.
What became of the plane? Did it sink? Who owned it? Who’s going to pay for it?
According to my sources, pulling a chute like that and the subsequent landing usually causes significant damage to the airframe. It might be possible to repair such an airplane but in general when you pull the Big Red Handle assume the airplane is a loss. Doing so over water means the airplane sinks, causing water damage. And, of course, if the water is very deep retrieving the airplane is not cost-effective and it stays where it sinks.
Yes.
I believe the pilot did, but I’m not 100% sure.
If the pilot had a loan for the plane (like a loan for a car, but much more money) he’ll still be obligated to pay the loan until the debt is settled.
Insurance may or may not cover some/all of the cost, depending on the extent the airplane was insured, the nature of the policy, and so forth.
The report I saw said he was ferrying the plane to Australia.
So no doubt the insurance company is on the hook
With the relatively high number of small craft crashes, I guess the next question is why aren’t chutes mandatory on all small planes?
I was wondering why, if the Coast Guard was close enough to take the video, didn’t they rescue the pilot- so I did some googling and found this article which has some more info.
Edit: So the Coast Guard had a plane in the area, watching the event transpire. And I believe it is not uncommon for the CG to request help from cruise ships.
And gained ten pounds before disembarking.
What was the force of the plane when it hit the water? I would have thought belly flopping even with a chute would have been more than a little plane and human body could take.
I assume the pilot stays strapped in his seat? That point where the parachute had the plane pointing nose down was nasty. “I want to get off Mr. Bones’ Wild Ride!”
Uh, were we watching the same video? The landing on the water seems fairly soft to me - I’m sure there’s a jolt at the moment of impact, but that is far cry from being something the plane or human body could handle.
First, compared to the number of small aircraft world-wide there really aren’t that many crashes, it’s just that a certain number of them are widely publicized making it seem as if they little planes are death traps. They aren’t. Most small airplane pilots aren’t worried about a chute (either for themselves or the airplane) because the odds of needing one are actually quite small. When I knew pilots who engaged in aerobatics they carried a parachute every time they flew in a such a manner because 1) it is required and 2) that’s a situation where you are more likely to need one than flying from point A to point B on a pleasant spring day.
It is somewhat analogous to motorcycles: yes, they CAN be dangerous, and people engaged in certain types of motoring (like racing) do carry additional equipment, but for the most part the vast majority of people engaging in the activity are going to be fine and die of old age, in bed. Yes, the risk is elevated above that of, say, automobiles but it’s not mass carnage and blood all the time.
Second, most small aircraft in existence today were built before this technology was developed. The whole-plane parachute came out of the ultralight/microlight/homebuilding aircraft scene and showed up first in the late 1980’s (if I recall correctly). At first, the size and weight limits largely restricted them to tiny single-seaters. It’s only been in the last decade or two that reliable ballistic recovery parachutes (the technical name for these things) have been developed for airplanes up to four seats.
Third, there are limitations on these parachutes. It’s been close to 10 years since I last sat in an airplane equipped with one of these or read a manual so there might have been advances in the meanwhile I’m not aware of, but I’m going to assume most of the following points still apply in regards to why more new airplanes don’t have these, and why relatively few older aircraft aren’t retrofitted with them (which is, by the way, an option).
There has to be a sufficiently strong anchor point to attach the 'chute. Particularly with the homebuilt aircraft in the early years there were some unfortunate incidents involving the opening shock removing parts of the airframe or otherwise inducing or worsening self-disassembly. Some very small aircraft simply can not be retrofitted with a parachute for this reason. Now, the Cirrus doesn’t have that problem, it was designed from the get-go to have such a parachute. Some common types of small aircraft, like the Cessna 150/152/170/175/etc. line have had sufficient research and interested parties that there is now a standardized retrofit for those airplanes and indeed some have been outfitted with these systems. Problem is, they cost money not only to install but maintain. You can’t ignore these forever, they must be periodically inspected, maintained, and after a certain amount of time your need to replace the on-board solid-fuel rocket. About that –
There are some hazards to these systems, to the point they are not legal in all places. Let me explain: you see, that parachute is launched by a solid fuel rocket. That’s because you need to get the 'chute from inside the plane to outside the plane rapidly, so it can deploy quickly, and save your life. That requires sufficient power to not only drag the chute out, overcoming weight and friction, but punch through the side of the airplane. Or the top. Or wherever it’s designed to come out. Yes, there’s a break-away panel installed in front of the thing, but that panel needs to be secure enough to stay on in all flight modes otherwise so it’s not that fragile a seal around it. These systems were outlawed in the UK after some unfortunate accidents involving these systems undergoing maintenance/rocket replacement/other handling. It turns out the little rockets will not only deploy through the sides of aircraft they can deploy through any human bodies that happen to be in the way when one goes off. And that’s really as much detail as I care to know about those accidents. In the US, there are issues involved with shipping solid fuel rockets hither and yon, either for purchase, installation, maintenance, or replacement purposes which can add to the costs of installation and maintenance, not to mention you don’t want someone working on this thing who isn’t fully up to date on how to do it safely.
There are circumstances where such a recovery system can make an accident worse rather than better. Remember, you’ve got a rocket on board. The Cory Lidle accident, where a Cirrus slammed into the side of a building, generated a larger explosion and more fire than typical of a crashing airplane that size because the ballistic recovery rocket blew up when it crashed and/or caught on fire. Just like airbags can kill people as well as save lives, so too can these systems cause problems as well as solve them.
Finally, a parachute is not a guarantee. It actually says that right on the freaking side of the parachute/rocket canister. In airplanes I’ve seen equipped with them there’s usually a little placard near the Big Red Handle (yes, it really is a big red handle). Use of such a system in an emergency does not guarantee survival. There was an accident involving a mid-air collision over, if I recall, Colorado a few years back where a ballistic recovery system was properly deployed but, because the airplane was on fire the people on board burned to death before the 'chute gently deposited the flaming wreckage on the ground. There are other examples out there. Even when people survive, there have been instances of severe injury, especially when deployed at low altitude where there is not sufficient time for the system to fully deploy (if I recall correctly, the lowest claimed save was around 100 feet, or around 33 meters, but both men suffered significant injuries requiring hospitalization).
So why doesn’t every small plane have them? Like a lot of things, it’s a trade-off. In this case, sometimes structural limitations, certainly money costs, regulatory restrictions/hassles, and the fact that the number of emergencies where they are truly necessary for survival are only a small minority of emergencies that can occur to a small aircraft. We don’t require pre-airbag regulation cars to be retrofitted with airbags, we don’t require all small aircraft to have whole-plane parachutes.
Nope, it’s sort of the point of the whole thing that a descent under a parachute is at least likely to be survivable. It’s important to remember that injuries can still occur, but the idea is to smack into the planet (or ocean) gently.
A 'chute landing in a Cirrus is alarming (as is the reason for pulling the Big Red Handle, I’m sure) but the average human being will be able to handle it barring nothing else going wrong. I’ve heard it described as the all-over jolt you get from a car wreck - you’ll feel it for awhile, even if there are no overt and discrete injuries. There is a possibility of whiplash-type injuries both at the time of opening shock (the initial point where the 'chute suddenly slows you down) and at impact. Also, problems from stuff flying around inside the airplane, whacking bodyparts like arms and legs against the interior, and/or other complications (like your airplane being on fire). I’m told that while it is a very exciting ride it’s not a particularly fun one. Basically, a serious emergency followed by two jolts separated by an interlude of terrified boredom during which you can’t do a damn thing but be a passenger.
Yes, one would hope so. Also one hopes everyone else aboard also remains securely belted in.
The “nose down” portion is brief, the intention is for the airplane to land with the landing gear down, which will best absorb the shock of landing impact.
My understanding of what’s involved is not perfect, but I believe what usually happens is that the 'chute kills the forward momentum of the aircraft sufficiently that the wing, lacking enough airflow, loses its lift and stalls. Airplanes, by and large, are designed to have the nose drop when that occurs because, under more normal circumstances, that restores proper airflow and allows the wing to regain lift and continue flying. In this case airspeed is not restored and the airplane, due to the design of the system, adopts a “feet down” posture allowing for a gear-first landing (in theory).
Loss of portions of the aircraft may affect the balance of how this works out - lose a chunk of airplane in a mid-air collision then deploy one of these, well, you might land tail-first, nose-first, sideways… but the odds of your survival will still be considerably greater than otherwise.
It should be noted there are significant speed and weight limitations on these systems. Particularly in regards to speed, there is a risk of damaging the parachute if you deploy above a certain speed. Needless to say, that would be a Bad Thing to have happen on a day that is already turning out badly. Of course, the designers do their best to make these things as robust as possible but there are limits imposed by physics.
There are other hazards, too, after you land - like escaping a sinking airplane, a burning airplane, being stuck up in a tree (people have been killed by exiting airplanes stuck in trees - a friend of mine who got his ultralight stuck in one said it is really tempting to try to cross that final 30 feet or so on your own, especially when it’s taking emergency services hours to get a crane out to you, you’re cold, hungry, thirsty, bits of you hurt, and it’s starting to get dark… but don’t do it) but those are risks of a lot of emergency type landings and not exclusive to parachute landings.
Really? I’ve always assumed they were launched with a mortar. IIRC, early ejection seats used a mortar before the rocket ejection systems came about.
Good questions.
Hey, if I’m ever months behind on airplane payments, I sure hope I have the foresight to have the insurance paid to date, have gas in the tank, and manage to pull the red chute handle while out to sea next to a 4-star cruise ship. 
“12:15 and ALL the Lobster is gone Already!? Hey, my plane Sank…! Can’t you get Another Platter?” 
Also I imagine these chutes being a one shot deal, not something you can easily practice or train on but rather a ’ might not kill you’ device. So even if lots of planned had them they’d still be a measure of last resort which may or may not improve your chances based on the condition of the plane, accident, wind, weather, etc.
Yep, really.
It’s not a huge rocket, it’s not like a Saturn V engine or anything, but yes, it’s a teeny rocket. Or a hypertrophied firecracker on mega-steroids, depending on your point of view.
There used to be a competing product that relied on compressed air to launch the 'chute but they went out of business. And not because the product failed to work, either, they had some saves as well, but for a number of reasons BRS captured the market.
AIUI, the Cirrus’s harness is embedded under the skin. Deploying the 'chute will have an effect similar to opening the end of the box of a frozen dinner.
In addition, the shock of opening and landing will cause more damage – some of it will be invisible in a composite structure. And of course, there’s no reason to suspect that the aircraft will land in an open field. Search on ‘cirrus’ ‘deployed’ ‘parachute’ and look at the images.
Oh, yeah, you get some gnarly pictures with those search terms.
In case anyone is curious what one of those things looks like before deployment here’s a picture. The system would be attached to a cabling system that ends in a pilot-accessible handle in the cockpit, except I think in the Cirrus the thing might be mounted above the pilot so the handle is more directly attached. Installation details vary with the aircraft in question.
Oh, and that warning placard I mentioned? here’s a picture.
In this case the chute was very useful since the plane was at altitude, there was advance warning of the problem, and there was no land at all within reach. Most small plane emergencies either take place too close to the ground (during takeoff or landing) for the chute to deploy and slow the plane’s descent, or an emergency landing can be made by, say, gliding in and landing on a clear flat patch of land. [“A good landing is one you can walk away from; a great landing means you can reuse the plane.”]
I don’t know the added cost to equip and maintain the chute system, but anything designated for aviation is always MUCH more expensive that the materials and technology would appear to require. I suppose it comes down to this - general aviation involves some amount of risk, and the cost/benefit for the chute system may not work for most buyers.
I’m shaking my head at this. 200 miles from land even.
Tangentially related. Boris Popov, the founder of BRS, is a family friend. I’ve stayed at his home in Minnesota, though it was many, many, years ago. He’s an exceedingly wonderful, interesting, and generous person.
