Posted on 12/23/2004 6:21:20 AM PST by MississippiMasterpiece
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Albert Kolk's small plane banked uncontrollably in darkness over the Monashee mountains, then began spiraling. "Seat belts!" he barked to his teenage grandson and two young friends. Then he reached for a red lever in the cockpit. Suddenly, an orange-and-white parachute as big as a house opened above the plane and gently landed his stricken aircraft in a rocky clearing.
If the maker of the parachute that saved Kolk's life this past spring succeeds, one day commercial aircraft like regional commuter jets may have similar safety systems. First, though, there's the challenge of creating a parachute robust enough to rescue bigger, faster planes.
"Weight and speed are always the challenge," acknowledged Robert Nelson, chairman of Ballistic Recovery Systems Inc., which sold about 500 of its $16,000 parachute systems this year for use by small private planes and pilots like Kolk.
The company's most advanced parachute right now can accommodate nearly 4,000 pounds. While small planes can weigh up to 2,000 pounds and cruise about 175 miles per hour, regional jets weigh 80,000 pounds and fly at more than 600 miles per hour.
That's why Ballistic Recovery Systems is working with NASA -- which gave it $670,000 for research -- to design a new generation of emergency parachutes that would work on small jets and could be steered by pilots as they drift to the ground.
Kolk, a rancher who was piloting his private plane April 8 from Seattle to his ranch in British Columbia, remembered reaching for the parachute handle as his plane slipped into a dangerous flat spin over the mountains in British Columbia, "like how a dog chases its tail."
A seasoned pilot, Kolk said he had never experienced such a disaster in over a decade of private flying.
"I knew I was in trouble. I couldn't straighten out," Kolk said. "When that chute opened, it was a peaceful, wonderful feeling."
Kolk's experience is one of four cases where parachute-equipped planes landed safely beneath a canopy since U.S. regulators approved the system six years ago. Ballistic Recovery Systems, based in St. Paul, Minn., says eight lives were saved in those four incidents, plus dozens of other people in accidents involving smaller parachute-equipped ultralight planes that resemble motorized gliders.
The parachute, stored behind the rear seats in small planes, is fired with a rocket through the rear windshield; it's attached with high-strength lines to the plane's wings, nose and tail.
They are increasingly popular among private pilots, and for good reason: The government said 626 people died in general aviation crashes in 2003, compared with 81 people aboard commercial airlines.
Aviation experts question whether parachutes will ever be attached to the largest passenger jets, such as the Boeing 747, which weighs more than 900,000 pounds. "The speed and weight of those planes would seem to preclude a system like that," said James Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Most of the estimated 500 parachute systems Ballistic Recovery Systems sold in 2004 went to aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Design Corp. of Duluth, Minn., which includes them as standard equipment on its line of small private planes. U.S. regulations allow owners of some Cessna small planes to install parachutes, but only about a dozen have bought the add-on equipment so far.
Brent Brown, a lawyer in Roanoke, Va., was having one added to his plane. Brown, who often flies twice a week over the mountains in western Virginia, said he couldn't imagine choosing to save money by not adding the new safety equipment. "I would feel awful silly on that terrible, terrible ride down," Brown said.
The emergency parachutes aren't flawless. Two families in Syracuse, N.Y., are suing Cirrus, Ballistic Recovery Systems and others for a combined $67.5 million over a fatal crash in April 2002. The case is pending in federal court.
The families said the pilot, a plastic surgeon who bought the plane six days earlier, tried to open the parachute but it failed. Defense lawyers have denied the system malfunctioned, and federal investigators concluded the parachute never opened "for undetermined reasons."
In another accident, one month before the Syracuse crash, pilot Paul Heflin of Lexington, Ky., repeatedly pulled hard on the parachute handle when his plane began a steep, uncontrolled dive from 3,000 feet. "He was pulling for his life," recalled Heflin's passenger, Benjamin Ditty. Both suffered minor injuries but walked away from the wreckage.
The parachute popped open just after the plane crashed, "which was not too convenient for us," Ditty said. Months after Heflin's crash, Cirrus ordered all its customers to immediately replace a vital cable in the parachute system.
Heflin said he still has faith in the parachute, but Ditty -- who also flies -- said he would never rely on one again. "It was supposed to work," he said.
Some pilots insist they'll never fly without a parachute.
"People are crazy not to fly with them," said William Graham of San Diego, an instructor pilot whose plane landed beneath a parachute this spring near Stockton, Calif., after it unexpectedly flipped upside down at 16,000 feet. Graham, who was flying with his wife, Barbara, said they drifted onto a farm field so gently the landing didn't break fragile Christmas ornaments and glass bottles aboard the plane.
Video of the parachute is available at:
http://wid.ap.org/video/video/airplanechute.rm
If you aren't aware of these yet, you should be.
Do doctors have a high crash rate?
It's reserved for 'hired guns' to protect the company from lawyers who don't care how much they stifle innovation or who they hurt in their quest for the combination to the company bank account. Much like bank robbers of old, we ought to start killing them as they ride into town.
Parachute(s) could come in handy for larger planes that have crash, horizontal landings.
Somebody invents a parachute system that saves a certain percentage of lives that would otherwise be lost, but because it can't save EVERYONE it's unfair, flawed, and therefore useless. It's like the arguments against missile defense: you can't stop EVERY missile, so it's useless. If a drug helps 1,000,000 people and kills 1, it's too dangerous. Using this logic, eventually trial lawyers will end vaccinations in this country.
It's a shame there is no mechanism where this company can be paid the big bucks for everyone they save, to offset the big bucks they will lose for everyone they fail to save...
How about this. A company installs parachutes on airplanes for free. But if you pull the handle and it saves you, you owe that company a million bucks. Naaaah, that's too much thinking to do on the way down.
I remember the story about the man who first discovered how to recover from a flat spin. During WWI, a pilot went into a flat spin at altitude which was thought to be unrecoverable. He got tired of waiting for death, so he nosed the plane down to hurry the process along, and discovered how to recover from the spin by accident.
Actually, he didn't have a parachute then, but thought about it on the way down and sure wished he did. Saw him interviewed on "Wings" or some such show.
A preemptive defense of a product that may not be that safe?
Do you think that maybe the reason Cirrus includes a parachute is because the plane is unrecoverable from a spin?
If a plane is capable of recovering from a spin, why would anyone want to pull a chute and crash land with the resulting damage?
The reason you so frequently hear of professionals like doctors and lawyers crashing is that they have the money to get themselves into an airplane, usually a higher performance airplane. But all the money in the world will not buy talent, experience or judgement.
Excellent thought.
I would guess that it's rare that commercial jets have "fall out of the sky" accidents where a paracute would need to return the jet gently to earth. I would guess that most jet accidents are on take-off and landing, in which case a drag chute would offer the pilot an option to minimize loss of life.
"Do doctors have a high crash rate?"
It seems they do. They can afford a plane but fly it so little that most never see 30 hours a year. Their arrogance towards learning to fly shows as well. Being doctors, they think flying is such a trivial matter that they fail to pay attention to the details that will kill them.
Spins no longer taught? or Required to get the PPL? Tell you what, come out to Utah and I will teach you how to recover from a spin. Your license is just a permit to continue to learn : )
The Cirrus has too small of a rudder to recover from a serious spin. So they put the parachute in to compensate, then they try to promote it as a safety feature. The parachute exempts the plane from the FAA requirements that the plane be demonstrated to be able to recover from a spin.
I don't have a beef with Cirrus or parachutes (I have used a few). It is just that I think it only helps in a very narrow range of possibilities. If you stall close to the ground - say turning on final, where most stalls occur the parachute won't do you any good. If you have a fire the parachute will actually help roast you. About the only scenario that I think the parachute is good for is a structural failure and those are very rare.
Flying (inadvertently) into clear ice is the first thing that comes to my mind.
I just got back from bringing my bride's car to the shop. It's eight below here, and her heater didn't work. It was 22 miles -- mighty cold.
Although it was over 25 years ago, spin recovery wasn't required but my instructor taught it anyway.
I might say that his excelent instruction, both private and instrument probably saved my life and my 5 passangers when I crashed my Saratoga in Mexico.
Every filght instructor I've had has said so. The common opinion is that they have a very high opinion of their skills ("I'm a Dr. I can do anything"), but as someone else said, they don't have the time to practice to be able to safely fly what they can afford. My brother in law is a Doc and scared himself badly enough in weather to give up flying and sell his plane.
when I crashed my Saratoga in Mexico...
Glad your still here. Why did you go down?
I'm not aware of any spin problems. The Cirrus is an all around great airplane with great looks, value, performance and safety. The parachute is a "nice to have but hope you never need it" option. There have already been a few cases of Cirrus owners deploying the chute, but I don't recall them being deployed as a result of a spin.
"...why would anyone want to pull a chute and crash land with the resulting damage?"
Because if crashing is inevitable, living through the crash is better than not living through the crash.
I can't imagine how anyone could even consider sending a student out solo without spin training. They still require spiral dive recovery I hope- that is scarier than a spin IMO because it develops so quickly.
I am envisioning flying into a huge invisible sheet of ice hanging in the sky : )
How do you inadvertently fly into icing conditions? All icing conditions are IFR by definition. If you are flying in IFR conditions you had better know what you are doing and anticipate icing. If you are flying in a storm the last thing you want to do is pull the chute (of course it would be the last thing you ever did).
Sure, if your airplane was completely disabled by ice (not on takeoff or landing) it would be nice to be able to pop the chute. Or if you flew into a thunderstorm and it ripped your wings off it would be nice to be able pop the chute (after you had fallen free of course, but how would you tell?).
My GlaStar in a full stall descends at 500 to 800 fpm with a forward velocity of about 30 knots. With a BRS it would descend at a rate of around 800 - 1200 fpm with minimal forward velocity. Which is better? I guess it depends on the conditions, so is it worth cutting my payload by 70+ lbs and spending $16,000 on something that may help me in only a couple of situations?
Transport Canada dropped the spin recovery from the flight test (replaced it with a power-on stall) but spin training is still mandatory here. I have met several American instructors and they all make their students do spins in spite of the fact that the FAA doesn't require it.
I wasn't trying to sell anyone a parachute. One can pick up a load of ice that wasn't forecast while flying IFR. It is a situation where a parachute might save your bacon.
"Why did you go down?"
Long story but basicly, I had a 240# nurse swap seats with a 95# doctor unknown to me when we went through a squall line about 100 miles below Guymas that put me 10" aft CG and when I set down on a dirt strip that was not only short it was adobe that was wet under the surface and was like landing on grease. I was able to get out but heading straight for power lines on 3 sides I tried to go under them and with her big fat ass in the rear seat it sunk out and slammed into a berm and mesquite at about 95k.
""People are crazy not to fly with them," said William Graham of San Diego, an instructor pilot whose plane landed beneath a parachute this spring near Stockton, Calif., after it unexpectedly flipped upside down at 16,000 feet. Graham"
This statement raises an eyebrow. 16k and he can't just continue the roll to upright. It ain't like he overturned a canoe in the Bearing Sea. Did they hit Clear air Turbulence and get rolled, then pull the "Oh Sh!t Handle???"
I hope were not getting the whole story.
"after it unexpectedly flipped upside down at 16,000 feet"
what a dork, he shouldn't be teaching anyone how to fly!
I got flipped in an imbedded thunderstorm crossing between El Monte and Seal Beach and it was only a problem to the 2 passangers that were totally spooked by it.
Transitioning that sector is a very confined corridor since it is crossing the landing approach to LAX. When I asked the controler to detour around those things his response was, they are only little ones and you only have 2 more to go!
Thanks a lot AH!
IMO, the only reason for these is primary structural failure, engine departure, or departure from controlled flight due to icing.
Primary structural failure can be better mitigated by inspection, they call it damage tolerance for a reason. Not to mention that this is extremely rare in airplanes not used for aerobatic flight (where parachutes are required by law, as well as minimum altitude)
Engine separation, and the resulting aft CG shift and departure from controlled flight, is generally caused by losing a propeller blade. Not much on an airplane that can kill you so fast is easier to inspect. I'd like to know how many prop failures resulted from a rapidly growing crack that was not easily caught on the ground. This scenario is avoided by some Aerobatic pilots and Bush pilots by tethering the engine to the mount. It can still be torn off, but won't separate from the airplane. Thus leaving the pilot broken but controllable machine.
As for icing, seems like active heating and pneumatic boots would be cheaper, safer, and more reliable (will this chute deploy with an inch of airframe ice?). Not to mention the STC already exist.With that said, I'm not against the Ballistic Chute technology, however I don't see it as a panacea.
I do think anyone who says your "crazy" for flying without it is either misguided, or on the payroll.
How many are going to idiot their way into a coffin corner fealing secure they can "pull the handle" when reality strikes?
BTTT
That would have scared the crap out of me! Not enough to close my eyes and spiral 16K feet to certain death.
High enough, it would seem, that the V-tail Beechcraft Bonanza acquired the nickname "Doctor Killer"
Forked Tailed Doctor Killer.
Kinda funny, they are the easiest airplane to fly I've ever encountered.
>>If a plane is capable of recovering from a spin, why would anyone want to pull a chute and crash land with the resulting damage?<<
How about engine failure at night, over mountains or in hard IMC ? Control surface or structural failure? You might get lucky and fly your way out of these situations, but if it's me and I have the option, I'll take the slow ride down under the canopy and let the insurance company worry about the damage to the plane.
Agreed. And I didn't realize that W visited the Cirrus factory - great! They're building and selling planes at an amazing rate. I am so happy for the Klapmeier brothers - two truly nice guys who had a great idea. Starting in the experimental regime, and refining from there to become certified ... AND running the company like a business - good for them!
I got a demo ride in a G2 to Oshkosh this year ... niiiiice plane!
Agree about spins. I took an hour of spin training in a 152 Aerobat before I soloed. I am VERY glad I did - especially when it came time to practice the stall series solo.
Unfortunately, one of the major causes of takeoff accidents is the departure of the pilot's actions from their training. Depending on the point during takeoff when you lose power (or whatever), some pilots attempts to turn back to the field (not even landing downwind, but going for the same direction as their takeoff!) too low or too close, instead of landing straight ahead, or if that's not possible, choosing a different place to set down.
I have had an engine failure at night over mountains. I landed safely at an airport. Obviously hard IMC would make it tougher. I try to follow Chuck Yaegers precepts and try to avoid three challenges because I can only handle two : )
Control surface or structural failure?
Sure I would like a parachute then : )
You might get lucky and fly your way out of these situations, but if it's me and I have the option, I'll take the slow ride down under the canopy and let the insurance company worry about the damage to the plane.
What is the difference between descending at 800 fpm and 35 mph or descending at 1200 fpm with no forward speed?
On a more practical note, the Cirrus has around a 600 pound payload with full fuel. That effectively makes it a three seater with zero baggage allowance.
So everyone is going to fly the plane over gross. That means more stalls, longer takeoffs, longer landings, slower cruise, higher fuel burn, etc. The last 70 lbs can make a big difference.
Since most accidents occur during take off and landing anything that increases my chance of a stall is to be avoided (weight mostly). An extra 70 pounds of useless parachute certainly won't help me when I am trying to recover from a stall at 500'.
In a class of mine we discuss ways to "system engineer" a safe crash landing system. Ejector seats have a concern since they depend on the weight of the passenger. But a section of seats might be successful or a system that weighed the passengers and adjusted the chute. The plane would also have to be separated using pyrotechnics to allow the smaller sections to be free to open their chutes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.