hello meteor. i was wondering possibly praying, since i fear flying why cant an airliner or helicopter for that manner be engineered to have a parachute system to slow the crippled vehicle down. what i believe could happen in worst case senerio is a disabled carrier total unable to fly on its own would have use a series of “parachutes” to slow down from hundreds of miles per hour to possible 40-50 miles per hour by the time the plane actually lands wouldnt this save a great many lives because maybe i am wrong here but when a person is killed in a crash it is mostly from the impact of the crash landing or is it mostly fire just womdering
Check out this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26248
As an additional note (that I did not see included in the previous thread), there is one company currently making a small, private aircraft which includes a parachute. The Cirrus SR20 is far from widespread (there first delivery happened within the last year, and I don’t think they have delivered more than a handful so far) but is beginning to get out.
Visit their website at http://www.cirrusdesign.com for more info (including a picture of the plane floating underneath the parachute.)
As I recall, the parachute is expected to slow the plane enough that the landing gear can absorb the remaining shock of hitting the ground. The airframe is NOT expected to be airworthy after such a landing, but the people should walk away.
Obviously, it is a long way from parachuting a 4-seat airplane to doing the same for a commercial airliner, but the example suggests it would be possible.
That Cessna system seems to work as I’ve seen several articles about it but it adds something like 30% to the cost of the aircraft and needs periodic checks which increases the whole life cost.
I want to reiterate what mavdave said on the linked thread: Commercial aircraft not tend to fall out of the sky with broken engines; they crash while taking off or landing, or they come apart in the air in such a way that no safety devices would help the passengers.
Once in a while there is, indeed, an event such as the Alaska Air crash a couple of months ago. Had there been a way to stop the engines and deploy a chute and ensure that the cabin stayed upright and ensure that the passengers were kept afloat in the ocean with no waves destroying the cabin, it is possible that there might have been some survivors. (On the other hand, since the control surface that messed up put the plane at a bad angle to deploy a chute, in the one accident we can see where it might have been worth trying, it probably would have failed.)
oi!
Tomndeb leave it out!
‘ere you tryin’ ter say - me ‘n’ bMavpace** ur an item ur wot eh?
‘ere I’m as butch an fick as wot they come an’ really manly an all vat stuff
:::sniff:::
Anyways we just share cars, er yeah, er an like to do manly fings to gevver like shootin an killin fings,
An drink beer cos were bowf men we are an rock 'ard too.
Keyboard troubles, Cas?
Among the potential problems with such a system:
- inadvertent deployment when not required
- extra weight - airlines would have to pull out revenue-generating seats
- useless if burning
- most (commercial) aircraft impacts with terra firma are survivable. It is the post-impact fires that claim people. Toxic fumes from burning carpet, seat covers, ceiling liners, etc generated from heat and fire also casu a significant number of fatalities
- most accidents occur during takeoff or approach to landing phase, low to the ground so that a chute device would likely not deploy in time anyway
“have a nice flight”
“you screw up just this much and you’ll find youself flying a cargo plane full of rubber dogshit out of Hong Kong!”