# Parachutes for airplanes **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 2, 2000, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178 "2000-06-02T01:38:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![insider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@insider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/insider)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/1 "2000-06-02T01:38:02Z")
Would it be impossible to have parachutes for airliners. In a fall they normally go nose down. It there were parachutes in the tail section there could be a chance of slowing the descent of the plane. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/2 "2000-06-02T01:55:35Z")
It would be _possible_, but why? Most airliners don’t crash. There is a new airplane on the market that comes with a ballistic parachute. The plane will likely be destroyed, but the passengers will likely survive. But it’s a small plane. The problem with putting a parachute in a large aircraft is that it would have to be massive. It would just be too heavy and space-consuming for the airliner to carry enough people to pay for itself. Putting a parachute in the tail has its own problems. The people up front will be crushed my the many tons of aluminum crunching down on them. The parachute would have to be near the CG so that the aircraft would descend in a horizontal attitude. Also, the APU is usually in the tail. But as I said at the start, not very many aircraft crash. That’s why they’re on the news when they do. Cars crash all the time, so the news doesn’t report on every one that does. Aircraft are very safe. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/3 "2000-06-02T01:57:39Z")
Of course, that should read “ **by** the many tons…” ---
**Author:** ![QirQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/848f3c/32.png) [@QirQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QirQ)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/4 "2000-06-02T01:59:00Z")
Yes it’s possible. But a buddy of mine who used to work as director of security for a well known major airline once told me …"You know with all the thousands of flights daily on our airline alone, it’s still cheaper to pay millions of dollars per head, if and when, a plane plows into a mountain side! Also what would happen in the industry the first time one of these chutes “accidentally deployed” while the plane was cruising normally at +600 mph? ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/5 "2000-06-02T10:54:05Z")
This question was asked on one of those aviation documentaries on the Discovery channel. In addition to all the comments in the above posts the main one is weight and size. A parachute large enough for a 747 would have to be the size of about 7 football fields, so you can see that it would be all but impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/6 "2000-06-03T14:20:09Z")
As Johnny L.A. pointed out, airliners are very safe but even in those cases where they do crash, a parachute would not have helped in the vast majority of cases. Think about TWA flight 800 (sudden catastrophic explosion) or Swiss Air Flight 111 (in flight fire) as good examples. In fact, parachutes would not help at all in any of the most common causes of plane crashes: 1. Low altitude take off or landing accident 2. In flight fire 3. Terrain collision 4. Runway collision between two aircraft ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/7 "2000-06-03T19:26:19Z")
For what it’s worth, many varieties of ultralight airplane (so I’ve heard) have a single parachute for the plane, rather than for the pilot. Again, there’s a world of difference between making a 'chute for a moterized hang glider and a 747 ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/8 "2000-06-03T19:40:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Cars crash all the time, so the news doesn’t report on every one that does. Aircraft are very safe. > > \*\* That’s a pretty unfair comparision, first off I’ve been in many auto-crashes and am still kicking. The media picks on sensationalism, car-crashes that end with death are often on the news, as with airplanes. What’s scary about airlines is that when accidents do happen the result isn’t some bodywork, its a countryside scattered with corpses. People instictivly want extreme proctections for extreme outcomes like air-travel related deaths. Yes, planes are very safe but why not safer, its a money vs. lives equation. Why not have each row of seats fire off like an ejection capsule or frequent replacement of older planes. Its simply not worth it as it would raise prices and without a restructering of the business model the industry would collapse under the weight of high-priced safety gear to save a couple hundred people a year. What it comes down to is you take your chances and your chances are good, but don’t expect any major changes in plane safety engineering anytime soon. I’ll just wait for the Jetson’s anti-gravity belt. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/9 "2000-06-03T19:56:37Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s a pretty unfair comparision, first off I’ve been in many auto-crashes and am still kicking. The media picks on sensationalism, car-crashes that end with death are often on the news, as with airplanes. > > What’s scary about airlines is that when accidents do happen the result isn’t some bodywork, its a countryside scattered with corpses. While airline crashes can and do result in 100% fatalities, most accidents are not of that sort. I’d have to look up the figures, but I’m pretty sure that less than half of all aircraft crashes (including airlines, military and general aviation aircraft) result in fatalities. Media usually report on incidents where the aircraft is undamaged and the pilot is uninjured; not just the fatal ones. I still say they report on them because they don’t happen very often, and are therefore “news”. > [@](#): > > Why not have each row of seats fire off like an ejection capsule or frequent replacement of older planes. Part of the reason there aren’t “ejection rows” (in addition to the cost that you mentioned, and the weight) is that people simply aren’t trained for emergency egress. Also, they would probably fire out of the side. The sideways forces on the human body would be severe. Then there’s the likelihood of collisions between the rows (military aircraft often have the front-seater go one way and the rear-seater, the other). Finally, people don’t understand simple things like turbulence. They are often out of their seats when the seat belt sign is lit. Still, it’d be a pretty good visual for a movie… > [@](#): > > What it comes down to is you take your chances and your chances are good Such is life. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/10 "2000-06-03T19:57:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > But as I said at the start, not very many aircraft crash. That’s why they’re on the news when they do. Cars crash all the time, so the news doesn’t report on every one that does. Aircraft are very safe. > > \*\* Um, that’s not _quite_ true. Airplanes are safer per passenger mile than cars, but that is because they tend to travel many miles in one trip – take off and landing being the most dangerous parts of the voyage. If you fly frequently, you are greatly reducing your life expectancy. Small planes actually do crash 3 or 4 of them per day in the US alone – but unless it’s some rich senator’s cousin or patrick Swayze, you only here about it on the local news. Cars do crash all the time, but fatalities are rare. When planes crash, survival is just as rare. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/11 "2000-06-03T20:37:24Z")
The following comes from the 1998 Nall Report [http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/99nall.html](http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/99nall.html) It covers only those aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds, which are “General Aviation” aircraft. Large aircraft tend to crash less frequently than small aircraft. (Note, these might actually be in the Member section.) > [@](#): > > For comparison purposes, in 1997 there were 1,642 total accidents, 331 fatal accidents, and 667 fatalities. In 1998, the total number of accidents increased to 1,679 and the fatal accidents increased to 341. The good news is that fatalities decreased to 619. The flying hours, according to FAA, increased by more than one million from 25.5 million up to 26.8 million. Based on those flying hours, the accident rate improved for the third consecutive record-breaking year and general aviation concluded the year with the lowest number of fatalities since 1955. Given 1,642 total accidents, of which 331 were fatal, about 20% of the accidents were fatal and 80% were not. This next quote is excerpted from the April 1996 _Safety Pilot_ column in AOPA’s _Pilot_ magazine: > [@](#): > > Some months ago a member on AOPA Online wanted to know how general aviation compared with automobiles in terms of accidents per mile. He knew seven pilots who had been fatally injured and was doing some soul searching about whether flying was really safe. It was a sobering request. > > Cars and airplanes are completely different animals and the statistical comparison is admittedly treacherous. In rough terms, cars are eight times more likely to have an accident than a general aviation aircraft on a per-mile basis. If an aircraft accident occurs, however, it is eight times more likely to be fatal. This number includes all manner of aircraft and flight operations, from crop dusters to corporate jets, so the rate by segment may vary, but it is a good starting point. Finally, this comes from [http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/stats/fctcrd11.html](http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/stats/fctcrd11.html) U.S. Civil Aviation Accident Data (As Reported by NTSB on 2/24/98) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\__ **total** _% Total Accidents\_\_\_\_\_\_\_2,006\_\_\_100.0 General Aviation\_\_\_\_\_\_1,858\_\_\_\_92.6 Air Carrier\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_148\_\_\_\_\_7.4 Total Fatal Accidents\_\_\_384\_\_\_100.0 General Aviation\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_356\_\_\_\_92.7 Air Carrier\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_28\_\_\_\_\_7.3 Total Fatalities\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_753\_\_\_100.0 General Aviation\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_660\_\_\_\_87.6 Air Carrier\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_93\_\_\_\_12.4 \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Total\_\_\_Fatal \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Accidents\_\_\_Accidents Rate per 100,000 Hours Flown\*\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_4.33\_\_\_\_0.83 General Aviation\_\_\_\_\_\_\_7.29\_\_\_\_1.40 Air Carrier\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_0.78\_\_\_\_0.15 Rate per 100,000 Departures\*\*\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_3.77\_\_\_\_0.71 General Aviation\_\_\_\_\_\_\_4.72\_\_\_\_0.90 Air Carrier\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_0.56\_\_\_\_0.02 - Includes air carrier (scheduled and unscheduled), commuter, and air taxi accident data. \*\* Based on NTSB estimated data (25.473 million hours flown by general aviation operators and 19.062 million hours flown by the Part 121 scheduled/ nonscheduled and Part 135 scheduled/ nonscheduled airlines). \*\*\* Based on FAA (39.400 million general aviation departures) and NTSB estimated data (11.695 million departures by Part 121 scheduled/ nonscheduled and Part 135 scheduled air carriers). So going by these 1996 numbers there were 2,006 total crashes of which 384 were fatal. About 19% of the crashes were fatal. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/12 "2000-06-03T20:39:56Z")
Oh, “rate per 100,000” means the rate per 100,000 hours flown. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parachutes-for-airplanes/21178/13 "2000-06-03T21:03:52Z")
I retract my last statement. Usually, accidents are given in terms of 100,000 flying hours. Having re-read the chart, it looks like there were 4.33 accidents (of which 0.83 were fatal) per 100,000 **hours** flown, and 3.77 accidents (of which 0.71 were fatal) per 100,000 **departures**. If I’m wrong, I will stand corrected.