I already quoted this but maybe you missed it. From the article I linked to in post #7-
Thanks very much for all information, Boomstick and everyone! Of course you’re right. The sudden stop when the plane belly flopped just looked so abrupt to my complete layman’s eyes. It seemed much faster than I expected it to be. But what I was basing my expectations on, I don’t know.
^ Exactly this.
Yes, but it may well be repairable. This BRS Aviation FAQ list says “The damage in most cases is to the airframe gear, seats and frame. The deployments to date have resulted in aircraft that can and have been repaired.” I know a guy involved in composite repair who has restored a couple of Cirrus aircraft (Cirri?) after a parachute deployment.
And a plane that goes into water is likely to suffer only mild damage on impact. But salt water will quickly cause enough corrosion to render the plan a total loss.
A transatlantic ferry pilot once told me that he avoids this sort of fate by the rather obvious precaution of checking that fuel from aux tanks is flowing properly before getting out of sight of land.
Wait…
This guy who flies overloaded aircraft across large bodies of water checks the operation of the valves? :dubious:
Whatever happened to people’s sense of adventure? :rolleyes:
That does seem like the kind of thing a pilot might want to add to his preflight checklist!
According to this report a trial flight was conducted on Saturday, after the auxiliary tanks were installed. It doesn’t say anything about a Sunday preflight.
There is a difference between “maybe” and “always”. Yes, maybe the airplane can be repaired, but depending on how and what you land on it might not. Although some airplanes might have been repairable after a parachute deployment quite a few of them have not been.
Well, since we don’t know if the pilot in this instance did or did not check fuel flow before leaving sight/reach of land, and since crap can happen while in flight, after passing of a pre-flight check, maybe we shouldn’t be too quick to assume it’s entirely the pilot’s fault.
I suspect you’ll get little dissent from this.
I’m not sure anyone is assuming it must be entirely the pilot’s fault.
But when a simple, easily checked and critically important item (fuel valve) proves not to be operational and causes a catastrophic end to a flight, it’s going to be hard for the pilot to avoid blame.
This plane-parachute thing. I read an article about 12 years ago that said they were looking into installing more of these on small jets and other planes as a way to make general aviation safer for less experienced pilots. The hope was more and more people would switch to flying small planes flying out of smaller airports and hence take some of the stress off the commercial airports and the airlines.
The idea was to get the difficulty of flying a plane closer to that of driving a car. The plane parachute was supposed to be the ultimate safety device. Others were better auto pilots.
It looks like theirs still a way to go.
Oh my goodness, where did you read that?
Whole plane parachutes are for extreme emergencies, for when there is no other alternative. When I read something like that I get the impression someone thinks they’re a panacea for what’s wrong with general aviation. They aren’t. You make aviation safer by training people to avoid problems as much as possible. The vast majority of emergencies can be handled without a parachute and should be.
Speaking as someone who actually does have a pilot’s license and flies small airplanes, making the machine go where you point it isn’t that difficult. The hard part of flying isn’t manipulating the controls, it’s the necessary planning and judgement to avoid problems. No safety device is going to give a pilot better judgement, which, IMHO, is the most important safety measure you can have in an airplane.
“Ultimate safety device”? No - as noted, they are not without risks themselves and landing under one may not be the end of your problems.
Better autopilots? As I said, manipulating the controls isn’t the hardest part of flying. The best autopilot still needs a sensible human being to program it and, if necessary, override it if things change en route.
I suspect the article you read was not written by an actual pilot.
The two biggest problems with small scale aviation are 1) pilots exceeding the limits of their skills and abilities and 2) pilots exceeding the capabilities of their aircraft.
Yeah - this is not something that could have been written by anyone who understands general aviation.
If you push this view to non-pilots, you’re likely to decrease safety by giving them the impression that the parachute can compensate for a shortage of proper skill, planning and judgment.
And the point has been made upthread that a high percentage of emergencies happen during takeoff and landing, where a parachute isn’t helpful.
Here is the article: LINK Its called “Freedom of the Skies” about the search for easier to fly plane along with better navigation systems.
But then, what if planes could learn to take off and land by themselves? Also what if airplanes could be made safer just as over the years cars have been made safer with airbags, better seatbelts, and better ability to withstand collision.
Is that a rocket in your cockpit or are you just happy to see me?
It’s a rocket in my cockpit.
*Got tired of Paying from your Hoard?
Yank your chute & Come Aboard!
Every Bill that brings you Ire
Is insured ( Inquire!)
When your valve needs to be “stuck”
Break with wrench, signal “oh F-ck!”
Planes drop to depths beyond compare
(Google “Malaysian Air”…)*
The technology to do this exists. But making practical robotic, passenger-carrying airplanes entails enormous complications.
Some advances are possible, and some have been achieved. But basic physics gets in the way of concepts like the plane that can crash during takeoff or landing with the passengers walking away unharmed.
I think there are some newer airplanes with airbag systems.
As for the ability to withstand collision… Well, if you’re colliding with something, it’s already too late. If post-crash structural integrity is the issue, then you run into the old ‘If black boxes survive crashes, then why not make the whole plane out of black box material’ question.
Just to add (as a Coast Guard C-130 pilot) that using a surface vessel - whether it’s a merchant vessel, Navy ship, Coast Guard cutter, or other - is standard for long-range search and rescue cases (I don’t have a chart to see how far away the rescue was from CG Air Station Barbers Pt, but it was probably beyond the range of the HH-65 helicopter to fly out and pick this guy up).
Usually the rescue coordination center (RCC) will send a plot of all AMVERvessels in the area the the rescue aircrew, and the Coast Guard aircraft would get on scene and make an urgent marine information broadcast (UMIB) on marine channel 16 asking for assistance (Pan Pan, Pan Pan, Pan Pan. Hello all stations. This is United States Coast Guard rescue aircraft 1720. The Coast Guard has report of an aircraft in distress in vicinity…"). They will also do a radar scan around the area, then fly over any vessels nearby and ask for help (I’ve done very low passes over ships trying to get their attention, if they aren’t monitoring Ch 16). Planes ditching short of making it to Hawaii is not super unusual; I know of at least two rescues friends of mine were involved in.
This might be done while talking to the person in distress; in this case the crew probably spoke with the Cirrus pilot as he watched his fuel dwindle and he indicated the was going to deploy his chute, and guided him toward the cruise ship. I’m sure they were speaking to the cruise ship skipper as well. Nice work to all involved in the rescue.
As an aside-I’d much rather pull a chute (especially if it was at night) if I’m going into the drink…I’d hate to ditch directly into the face of a swell at whatever 5 kias above power off stall speed is.