Thanks for that info CGAv8r; very interesting! Regarding this statement:
I’ll bet a C-130 passing overhead at say 500 ft. (or however low you go) gets their attention. I know it would get mine.
Looks out bridge window
“Look, Captain - that plane is giving us a friendly flyby.”
“Cool.”
conversation goes back to sports
A significant number of accidents on take off and landing aren’t so much “mis-piloting”, that is, putting bad inputs into the controls, but rather things like sudden engine failure or birdstrikes which a better autopilot won’t prevent and won’t necessarily solve. Computers are better than humans at doing routine things, humans are better than computers at handling the unexpected and unanticipated.
Recently airbags have been developed for airplanes and, even better, rotorcraft (helicopters don’t carry whole-aircraft parachutes because the rotors would cut the cables holding the 'chute). They’re actually kept in the “seat belt”/safety restraint. They’re even newer than parachutes, but I expect they’ll become more common in the future.
The “seatbelts” are actually pretty damn good if you’re talking about four-point harnesses, the biggest problem is getting humans to use them. A lot of people don’t like actual seat belts, much less straps across shoulders and hips.
There has been work done on the seats as well, making them better able to soak up the shock of a bad landing. That’s one reason a Cirrus is designed to land gear-first under a 'chute, because not only the gear but the seats as well are supposed to soak up some of the impact before it reaches the people in the airplane.
The collision thing… while mid-airs do occur they’re actually pretty rare. Cars hit each other because they’re typically operated only feet or inches away from each other. In aircraft, a half mile is a near miss and they’re typically separated by considerably more distance. Making them more “collision resistant” will also make them heavier, which is a big problem for things that fly. On-board warning systems that warn of nearby airplanes have been developed and are now standard on commercial airplanes. They aren’t perfect but probably have prevented some accidents over the years.
At the end of the day an aircraft is just a machine. It does what you tell it to do. If the human on board tells it to do something dangerous or stupid the machine will obey, which makes the weakest link here the human. It’s not enough to build a better machine, you need a well-trained human with good judgement to make good decisions, too.
Collapsing seats is why Robinsons have a seat weigh limit and Hughes/Schweizer/Sikorsky 300s don’t have any under-seat storage. The seats and supporting structures are designed to collapse in a hard landing to soak up a lot of the harmful energy.
Collisions in aircraft are usually not with other aircraft, but with something on the ground. The aluminum structure can dissipate a lot of energy before it reaches the occupants. For example, it takes a bit of energy to rip off the wings. ‘Crash cages’ in GA aircraft would improve survivability (I doubt they would help ‘heavies’); but most small airplane crashes are not fatal, and the added weight and cost (including certification) isn’t worth it.
BTW, Broomstick, I forgot: Did your off-airport landing damage the aircraft? If so, was it repaired?
Some small airplanes do have what amounts to roll cages. I’m trying to remember the name of one of them I was in but didn’t fly… Apache? I noted the robust cockpit design as soon as I got in it. Some ultralights have them. The way the Citabria and Decathalon are constructed you are given some protection from the structural tubing that forms the cockpit and fuselage.
I’ve known a few people who’ve walked away from small airplane crashes, and others who might not have walked but did survive - the airplane structure does soak up some of the impact. However, even the smallest airplanes move at freeway speeds, and many 2-3 times faster meaning any impact has the potential to involve MUCH more energy than the typical automobile crash. That makes building in crumple zones a bit more difficult.
Nope, no damage whatsoever. The owner flew the airplane back to the airport, the mechanics pulled the hay out of the wheels and undercarriage, and proclaimed it undamaged. Went back into service immediately.
I still get a kick out of all the pilots with more time and training who’d say something like “if I ever had to make an off-field landing I’d like her to be at the yoke/stick”. I may not be the fanciest pilot but I am damn good at landing!
But people kill themselves in cars all the time because they don’t drive them right.
Imagine if the average operating regime of a car was to cruise at 100-300mph on wide swoopy roads with no medians, markings or side barriers, and with lots of immovably solid objects/cliffs/rivers right up to the edge of the asphalt. Even with the safest, easiest-to-operate cars imaginable there would still be plenty of mishaps.
[Klingon]
The carnage would be glorious!
[/Klingon]
It would make an impression…
Back when I was addicted to the Wings? Channel I saw a special on designed from scratch commercial crop duster. Forget the name.
Weird looking little plane, but beautiful in the sense that form followed function. IIRC it could even be loaded from above with a hopper for some of its intended operations.
Also IIRC it was designed to protect to pilot in case of a crash, because being a crop duster is pretty darn dangerous on a per hour basis because you spend most of your time down very low or dodging stuff down low, and if not doing that taking off and landing frequently.
And again IIRC that particular model had a VERY good safety record when it came to crashes.
I always thought if I came into big money I might buy one just to have a safer plane.
This question was answered long ago, but I wanted to post an example of a Cirrus whose 'chute would have been useless had it been deployed.
Agree with this but with the added conditions:
Those with just enough wallet to likely have a matching ego will not buy that small an aircraft IMO. 
How is a parachute deployment that results in a damaged airplane not a crash when other damaged aircraft with no fatalities is considered a crash? 
51 events = 104 lives saved. This is a good thing. ( Were the crashes in such terrain/conditions that the loss of life is certain & those 104 would have died?)
IMO, it is not impressive from a cost/benefit comparison.
Would be interesting to know how many events that were exactly the same as the ones that caused the Cirrus pilots to pull the big red handle that were saved with no damage and no injuries just by good airman ship after they made the bad decision that got them in the mess in the first place? 
What % of the Cirrus accidents were the direct result of situations where poor pilot thinking was the most likely cause?
Continued flight into xxx conditions. (all pilot error most likely.)
A crank shaft shears. ( Not really a pilot error so skill or the parachute are equal and not pertinent IMO. )
Good find on that article Johnny LA, glad you posted it.
It’s a crash, but it’s not a fatal crash.