Are Planes With Parachutes Really Safer?

AGLyme said:
I took my first long, overnight X country last week... and as I was flying over the forested Mountains of Virginia and having to adjust my flight plan from 5,500 feet to 3,500 to get under the clouds, I won't push it just because I have a chute.

If I had an engine out I would first, second and third seek a safe place to land. The plane has a slow stall speed and I'd rather land on a golf course.
Click to expand...

Not to (re)start the whole single engine at night debate, but you might want to reread your own writing there a few times, slowly.

And at 3500MSL at night in the mountains, have you considered how likely your plan A of finding a safe place to land will work?
 
I started out at 7:30 AM... it was a daytime flight. I was preparing to land at Allentown but the cloud layer turned to scattered right over Allentown so I alerted the ATC and pushed on to Connecticut.
 
Why is this even a debate? That's like asking if ships with lifeboats are safer..

Just because people misuse the parachute or don't use it properly does not mean it doesn't work

Also, comparing Cirrus by itself to the industry is not entirely applicable since that airframe in general has a whole different set of operating practices and uses..

If you were in any kind of aircraft, at night or over water or over mountainous or urban terrain, and you had an engine failure, became disoriented, etc, would you ever be glad you did not have a parachute?

how many accidents do we read about here almost daily where some plane, not a Cirrus, crashes. And how often does it turn out that he had a loss of engine power and how often is it that it was actually a twin?

The chute works. Given the choice I will always take the airplane with the parachute.. does not mean I will not fly on the plane without a chute, but I'd much rather be in the one with one
 
Tantalum said:
Just because people misuse the parachute or don't use it properly does not mean it doesn't work ... Also, comparing Cirrus by itself to the industry is not entirely applicable ...
Click to expand...

It's interesting that when the media talks about "planes" and "parachutes" (sorry for the quotes, I know how much you love them ;)), they always focus on Cirrus/CAPS. I know that's where most of the US data is found, but as I said above, there are other airplanes that have come stock with non-BRS chute systems for years. And yes, the type of aircraft makes a big difference. Agreed.

If you were in any kind of aircraft, at night or over water or over mountainous or urban terrain, and you had an engine failure, became disoriented, etc, would you ever be glad you did not have a parachute?
Click to expand...

Well said. You know the story: Popov developed BRS because of his own experience in a hang glider that lost a wing. As he was falling toward the ground, he kept thinking, "if only I had a parachute ..."
 
I’ve never flown an airplane with a parachute but this is easy. Unless you can cite data to indicate that a parachute has been the cause of a crash, therefore making planes without parachutes safer, you’re going to have to check the ‘yes’ box. This is simply because of the possible scenario that involves in-flight breakup of the airframe either due to loss of control in weather or a collision. In such cases the parachute is the only thing that could possibly save you so that in itself gives it the edge overall. Of course there is the argument of the parachute causing people to go where maybe they wouldn’t without it but there is no way to quantify something based on what someone might have done, we can only go by what they did do.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I’m glad you bought an airplane with a parachute.
Click to expand...

It was the clincher when I approached the boss with the idea of buying an airplane..; ). Reason #34 to get one.
 
nOOb question:
-when airbags, ABS, and other automotive safety enhancements came out, where those ever consumer options or did the NHTSA basically mandate them off the bat?
 
Stephen Poole said:
It's interesting that when the media talks about "planes" and "parachutes" (sorry for the quotes, I know how much you love them ;)), they always focus on Cirrus/CAPS. I know that's where most of the US data is found, but as I said above, there are other airplanes that have come stock with non-BRS chute systems for years. And yes, the type of aircraft makes a big difference. Agreed.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the tough part of a fair apples:apples analysis really comes down to human nature
-If the legacy fleet now started offering BRS I bet most people would skip the option.. the useful load of a Mooney, Bo, etc., are already thin, so most people will not voluntarily take another 70lb hit to that and add $15K each decennial to them. Additionally, everyone is the best pilot they know and these planes have been flying for many many decades.. so why would you add the option?
.. so that data point would be flawed because people have other reasons for not buying them
-then you take something like Cirrus, which is absolutely a market disruptor and people and have their own prejudice against them.. so that's another dubious data point. When really, if CIrrus was not just a marketing gimmick you wouldn't see them going strong (still, relatively) almost two decades later, and the values would have fallen even faster on the used birds. I still don't know what makes them "fake pilots" - it's the same, or in some cases dramatically inferior, avionics that you can get on just about any other airplane, and it has a sidestick.. but do so many others. Do some owners give it a bad name.. sure.. but you'll find that in every industry. For every guy doing peel outs in his Mustang there is someone else waxing it in his garage and driving it responsibly.. or at least saving the peel outs for the strip

So you must look at it strictly empirically, @Silvaire said it very well. You'd have to somehow prove that having a parachute increased your likelihood of dying while flying... and the only evidence we have suggests (strongly) that it reduces your chances of dying while flying. The ship may still sink, and you may still get hypothermic, but would you rather be in a lifeboat or floating in the water? The choice is obvious to me

Other reasons flying got safer, honestly our avionics and avionics options are much better, just about every rental will have at least a 430, and with everyone sporting Foreflight, or some equivalent, many with their own Stratus (or similar) receivers you are simply less likely to:
-fly into bad weather
-plan poorly
-get lost
-etc.
..so saying that flying as a whole is safer and has nothing to do with chutes is like correlating veganism with global warming.. or shark attacks with iPhone use..

Stephen Poole said:
Well said
Click to expand...
Thanks.. and thank you for using quotes "correctly" ... it would have been a total "tragedy" if you employed them judiciously, but incorrectly
 
Tantalum said:
...If you were in any kind of aircraft, at night or over water or over mountainous or urban terrain, and you had an engine failure, became disoriented, etc, would you ever be glad you did not have a parachute?...
Click to expand...
I don't see how a parachute would improve your odds over water, at least if it was open water. It's been mentioned that the touchdown is hard enough that injuries sometimes occur, and since you probably need to get out of the aircraft and swim or tread water in order to avoid drowning, the injuries could make that harder.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't see how a parachute would improve your odds over water, at least if it was open water. It's been mentioned that the touchdown is hard enough that injuries sometimes occur, and since you probably need to get out of the aircraft and swim or tread water in order to avoid drowning, the injuries could make that harder.
Click to expand...
Maybe.. but we all only have our personal experience and know our own abilities. If I'm halfway to Catalina and the Conti finally gives up the ghost, and I can suddenly face two realities, one is teleporting to a C172 or PA28 with a dead engine, or stay in the Cirrus with a dead engine, I'll stay in the Cirrus... here's why:
-I have never landed a fixed gear on water, I don't know at all what that would feel like and I have zero practice for how to do that without flipping over
-I have been told to remove your seatbelt so you can get out right away without being trapped, but hitting water at even a C172 mushing stall of 35 knots will be aggressive, will I hit my head on the dash?
-what will I do if it flips?
-what's the sea state like?
-if I have a life raft with me will I be able to get it out of the plane in time? Hopefully "yes" if I don't flip... but if I do?

At least in the Cirrus I can expect a "hard landing" but have the door open and be ready to bail. If I brought a life raft (which I do) then at least I'll have a higher chance of getting that out and inflating it and waiting for rescue in that..

Would both scenarios absolutely suck? Yes
Would I rather, in that case, be in a twin? Yes
But I feel like, personally, I'd be more likely to live another day should I have the chute vs not have one in a single engine
..it's also presumably going to be more visible... sure, they say point towards a boat.. but planes are tiny.. at least if if I went towards a ferry and pulled the chute 1,000 AGL that ferry captain might see the orange chute descending where he may NOT see that "white Cessna with a blue stripe" at best glide... where the splash from ditching may look no bigger than a whale breaching.. if that
 
In a perfect world I would love to have a parachute in my airplane. I fly over complete wilderness in Canada from time to time, and I am constantly scanning for forest roads where I could do a forced landing if I had to.

I also would assume most people would love having a parachute, if it didn't cost so much or weighted as much. In my airplane forget it, I can only carry 44lbs of luggage and with a chute I would have no space left for luggage anyway.

So I take solace in the knowledge that my plane stalls at 36 knots. I recently passed on a great Glasair II mostly because I was afraid of the survivability in the event of a rough field engine out forced landing.
 
Tantalum said:
Maybe.. but we all only have our personal experience and know our own abilities. If I'm halfway to Catalina and the Conti finally gives up the ghost, and I can suddenly face two realities, one is teleporting to a C172 or PA28 with a dead engine, or stay in the Cirrus with a dead engine, I'll stay in the Cirrus... here's why:
-I have never landed a fixed gear on water, I don't know at all what that would feel like and I have zero practice for how to do that without flipping over
-I have been told to remove your seatbelt so you can get out right away without being trapped, but hitting water at even a C172 mushing stall of 35 knots will be aggressive, will I hit my head on the dash?
-what will I do if it flips?
-what's the sea state like?
-if I have a life raft with me will I be able to get it out of the plane in time? Hopefully "yes" if I don't flip... but if I do?

At least in the Cirrus I can expect a "hard landing" but have the door open and be ready to bail. If I brought a life raft (which I do) then at least I'll have a higher chance of getting that out and inflating it and waiting for rescue in that..

Would both scenarios absolutely suck? Yes
Would I rather, in that case, be in a twin? Yes
But I feel like, personally, I'd be more likely to live another day should I have the chute vs not have one in a single engine
..it's also presumably going to be more visible... sure, they say point towards a boat.. but planes are tiny.. at least if if I went towards a ferry and pulled the chute 1,000 AGL that ferry captain might see the orange chute descending where he may NOT see that "white Cessna with a blue stripe" at best glide... where the splash from ditching may look no bigger than a whale breaching.. if that
Click to expand...
I wasn't posting my observation as a reason not to own a Cirrus. I do, however, think that it's a factor to consider in deciding whether to deploy the chute when there is an engine failure over open water.
 
Tantalum said:
-If the legacy fleet now started offering BRS I bet most people would skip the option.. the useful load of a Mooney, Bo, etc., are already thin, so most people will not voluntarily take another 70lb hit to that and add $15K each decennial to them.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it would work in Mooney or Bo, but installing a BRS in a C182P or Q increases the useful load. It gives a net increase of 160lbs MGTOW. After adjusted for the weight of the parachute the useful load reportedly increases by 65~75lbs.
 
Palmpilot said:
think that it's a factor to consider in deciding whether to deploy the chute when there is an engine failure over open water.
Click to expand...
For sure.. ultimately it's buyer's choice as to what makes the most sense in a given situation. I was just speaking from my own experiences.
 
szwinger said:
Not sure if it would work in Mooney or Bo, but installing a BRS in a C182P or Q increases the useful load. It gives a net increase of 160lbs MGTOW. After adjusted for the weight of the parachute the useful load reportedly increases by 65~75lbs.
Click to expand...
Cool! I had no idea. A common thing people tell me is that it's not worth the useful load hit they'd take.. but now I have one more point-counterpoint I can give them haha
 
Tantalum said:
Cool! I had no idea. A common thing people tell me is that it's not worth the useful load hit they'd take.. but now I have one more point-counterpoint I can give them haha
Click to expand...

No free lunch though. It's not magic, the climb rate takes a hit, bigly. For instance, it's pretty well established that most 6-260s are lighter than the 300s, and generally have a higher useful load with 40hp less. Nobody would make the argument the 260 is a better performer. As always, power loading at the selected mission weight tells the tale, not some "paperwork useful load" sophistry meant to boost resale values. When an OEM or STC increases MGW with no accompanying increase in HP rating, you know what you're leaving on the table.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't see how a parachute would improve your odds over water, at least if it was open water. It's been mentioned that the touchdown is hard enough that injuries sometimes occur, and since you probably need to get out of the aircraft and swim or tread water in order to avoid drowning, the injuries could make that harder.
Click to expand...

You've probably seen this, but watch closely. This is the guy who ran out of fuel back in 2015 trying to make it to Hawaii.


The link should be set to start at about 1:18. If not, fast forward. Splashdown is around the 1:45 mark. Edit: I copied the link "with current time," but it starts at the beginning. :(

Now: honestly, imagine him trying to ditch without the chute and being able to hop right out, raft ready to go.
 
Stephen Poole said:
The link should be set to start at about 1:18. If not, fast forward. Splashdown is around the 1:30 mark.

Now: honestly, imagine him trying to ditch without the chute and being able to hop right out, raft ready to go.
Click to expand...
When this video came out it was my clincher.. since then I stopped sharing since the poo-poo'ers come out and say that he had everything aligned with the sat phone, the C130, the cruise ship, clear skies, you name it..

All that could be true, but at the end of the day watching him just chilling as he descends under chute and then hopping out into the water after a (relatively) gentle splash down made me realize how awesome the CAPS system is
 
He never would have attempted this dangerous, over-water trip if he didn't have that chute...he didn't even realize it, but the chute endangered his life.
 
Challenged said:
He never would have attempted this dangerous, over-water trip if he didn't have that chute...he didn't even realize it, but the chute endangered his life.
Click to expand...

... people have ferried aircraft to Hawaii for decades using big ferry tanks, especially Cessna 17x and 18x models. As I recall, this guy had trouble with the fuel selector on his ferry tank. (Or was that the case with the girl who had to ditch a while back? Can't remember.) The fact that he had a chute didn't cause him to make the flight.
 
Tantalum said:
watching him just chilling as he descends under chute and then hopping out into the water after a (relatively) gentle splash down made me realize how awesome the CAPS system is
Click to expand...

I have seen that video before and watched it a few times. I just noticed however that after the splashdown the wind quite swiftly turned the aircraft over. By the clock running on the video there was about 60 seconds between touchdown and the aircraft being inverted. Might be tough to get 4 people out even if all were fit and supple. The aircraft turned so that it was being dragged one wing first through the water and then the wing dug in to the sea.

A fix might be to:-

Have a sea-drouge anchor attached to the tail to keep the aircraft head to direction of travel.
or
Release the tail end lift line from the parachute or indeed release more or all lines.

Could have the same dragging problem over land but it is less likely to have a wind strong enough to cause trouble in that case.
 
Spring Ford said:
A fix might be to:-

Have a sea-drouge anchor attached to the tail to keep the aircraft head to direction of travel.
or
Release the tail end lift line from the parachute or indeed release more or all lines.

Could have the same dragging problem over land but it is less likely to have a wind strong enough to cause trouble in that case.
Click to expand...
Or just get to the 'chute lines with a knife asap?
 
Tantalum said:
Yeah this has also crossed my mind, I just carry a Leatherman with me
Click to expand...
I carry a Leatherman, too, but I often have a Gerber StrongArm within reach somewhere in my gear, and strapped if I'm concerned about getting to it quickly. I've had it for a while now and believe it's the best bang for the buck. It's also pretty famous on Youtube for the famous "gauntlet" test.

If you want to look at it, here's a link: https://amzn.to/2XxYk2A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top