Would a parachute make you feel safer?

I wear my parachute in the Flybaby because it makes me feel better and positions me in the airplane better. Hope to never use it, but if I do, it'll be one hell of an expensive adrenaline rush.
 
Consider the situations where it would be necessary to leave an aircraft. Then consider the egress possibilities of your particular A/C for all aboard under those situations. (Want to be in the back seat of a 172, in a parachute, trying to slide the front seat forward while spinning to the ground???) Then rent a parachute and sit on it for a few hours. I had my fill of sitting on a parachute in Primary Flight. No thanks. :no:
 
I'm already cramped in the 172. Haven't seen a parachute, but where would it be stored? If it's not on, would the pilot really have time to put it on? "In an emergency, "put on the 'chute"...oh wait...isn't it "Fly the plane"?

I'm prefer the plane itself have a 'chute...like the Cirrus CR20 I'm flying now. Only trouble is, these are harder planes to fly, and some pilots take more chances with a 'chute...so the end result is a crash rate that's similar to other GA aircraft, certainly no better (was far worse until recently).
 
Ken Ibold said:
Depending on the study, about 85% are ultimately deemed pilot error by the NTSB. That figure may be slightly higher in reality because some portion of the roughly 3% that remain undetermined is due to pilot error.

So, things outside the pilot's control is perhaps 1 in 10 of reported accidents. Not sure I'd want to write off 10% quick that quickly.
Click to expand...

No, but I'll bet that good piloting and judgement would still resolve a good-sized portion of those. I will give an example. Flying back from Oshkosh one year my buddy decided to take a shortcut, flying direct between Chicago and Gary, which put us a mile or two out over the water. I asked him if he could swim to shore in the event of an engine out situation. He confidently told me he could, and recounted some of his swimming exploits. I then told him that I most certainly couldn't, and asked how he was going to explain my drowning death to my widow, especially in the light that it was utterly preventable.

Just an example. You are correct, there are situations in which only a parachute, a well executed jump, and a safe landing will save you. In some of those situations a safe landing in a parachute will be just as difficult as one in an aircraft.

My contention is still the risk analysis would seem to favor training and maintenance, since those are far more likely to threaten your safety.
 
steingar said:
What about a dual seat glider is more inherently safe than a single seat glider? They all seem rather perilous to me.
Click to expand...

I dunno, seems safer then a spam can to me. If you dont plan on using an engine you dont have to plan on it going out.


tonycondon said:
usually the two seater is not assembled before each flight. Gliders are just as strong or stronger than your Piper. Especially the early fiberglass ships, they are very strong.

Also, the Schweizers are really not designed with the extra space for a parachute. Most European two seaters have seats designed for chutes and I often wear mine when instructing in them and especially when flying XC. Chutes are required in soaring competition and that has just led to a culture of wearing them all the time for most pilots, even those who don't compete.
Click to expand...

I have yet to wear a parachute in a glider ($$$) and because of that I have to use a few cushions whenever I go flying.
 
steingar said:
My contention is still the risk analysis would seem to favor training and maintenance, since those are far more likely to threaten your safety.
Click to expand...
No question about it. I actually do agree with you on this. Were it my money, I would vote for proficiency over parachute any day. But we all know that not everyone measures risk the same.
 
As far as a personal parachute, I wouldn't bother. Getting out of the 310 would be virtually impossible during flight, and often enoug I have passengers anyway, not to mention the comfort factor.

It does, however, seem to me that a BRS is a good idea in a plane. We make fun of the Cirrus pilots who wouldn't have to use them, but the reality is I've read enough NTSB reports where a BRS could have potentially changed the outcome. If there was an STC for one for the 310, I'd be interested.
 
steingar said:
I've never seen the point of making the majority of my preparations based on the minority outcome.
Click to expand...

That's basically most of what being a pilot is about - being prepared.
 
Seanaldinho said:
I dunno, seems safer then a spam can to me. If you dont plan on using an engine you dont have to plan on it going out.




I have yet to wear a parachute in a glider ($$$) and because of that I have to use a few cushions whenever I go flying.
Click to expand...

I know a guy who landed out in the hill country in Texas - damn near killed him. Ill take an engine running 99.9999% over something without an engine any day.
 
DavidWhite said:
I know a guy who landed out in the hill country in Texas - damn near killed him. Ill take an engine running 99.9999% over something without an engine any day.
Click to expand...

yea, guys with 40:1+ gliders get nervous in the hill country...
 
I don't wear a parachute for the same reason I don't wear a flame retardant driving suit with helmet with HANS device while driving to the grocery store. Sure I'd feel safer, but the cost and comfort don't outweigh the incremental safety it has.

That said, I'm sure if someone crossed the solid yellow line I might wish I was wearing one. In reality, I mitigate that risk by maintaining my car, keeping myself attentive and situationally aware. I do the same when flying.

Aerobatic pilots/test pilots are high-risk operators, just like race car drivers. They wear chutes to mitigate their increased level of risk.

As a passenger, would you feel safe if the your driver tossed the driving suit/helmet combo to you and told you to suit up for your carpool to work one morning?
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Consider the situations where it would be necessary to leave an aircraft. Then consider the egress possibilities of your particular A/C for all aboard under those situations. (Want to be in the back seat of a 172, in a parachute, trying to slide the front seat forward while spinning to the ground???) Then rent a parachute and sit on it for a few hours. I had my fill of sitting on a parachute in Primary Flight. No thanks. :no:
Click to expand...

Somewhat offtopic, but apparently there's an optional service bulletin for the DA40F to make the front canopy jettisonable http://diamond-air.at/fileadmin/upl...lletins/SBF4-010-O-Canopy-Jettison-System.pdf *
The passenger door is jettisonable as is. So technically, you could pop the doors off of a DA40 and get out in a hurry.

*to the best of my knowledge, there are two airplanes outfitted with the said system - s/n FC.028 and FC.029 - serving as the spin trainers in China. Now why you'd want to make a DA40F (fixed pitch, O-360) into a spin trainer is beyond me, especially considering the rest of your fleet is Thielert-powered DA40D/NG (not sure what they call them.. it's kindda NGs with Thielerts)

All that said, I do know someone from the Caterpiller Club who saved his bacon after a midair NTSB Identification: ERA11FA468B
 
DavidWhite said:
He totalled his Duo Discus
Click to expand...

when i first read your post, quoted, and responded, i didn't read the second sentence and thought you were talking about someone in an airplane (presumably engine out).

My impression was that tasking into the Hill Country was a big problem early in Uvalde's contest days (mid 80's) but after a while they figured out what sort of weather is needed to make it successful. You definitely want to get high and stay high though.

At the Worlds last year on one day the Open Class had Fredericksburg as a Turnpoint. They got to see ALL the Hill Country
 
Yeah he was REAL close to Fredburg. About 4 miles south of the Stonewall VOR.
 
Just a chime in, similar to some here. I would feel safer... no, would actually be safer with a BRS type parachute on the whole plane, but an individual parachute for the pilot and/or passengers is near to worthless given the difficulty in getting out of a typical piston GA plane in distress.
 
Even though I haven't long started, it hasn't crossed my mind lol. If you were to carry passengers however, they would probably have thoughts of the worse case scenario occurring and wished to have one. In larger aircrafts, it would be nice to know there are parachutes available to bail but i have faith in the Cessna.

http://youtu.be/iQyF9J-i9VY
 
I've got over 300 jumps (not that much in the skydiving world) and I can tell you that wearing a parachute might make you feel safer but without some training you could end up just as dead as if you rode in an unflyable airplane. I have two rigs and I never carry them with me unless I'm going on a skydiving trip.
 
steingar said:
And which of you really think that jumping out of a stricken airplane in a parachute that you may never have used before is inherently safe? Lots of meat bombs with way more experience die skydiving every year.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are trying to say here....

From the USPA.org website...United States Parachute Association
 

Attachments

  • Capture2.PNG
    Capture2.PNG
    10.6 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
The idea that a completely uncontrolled 1500 fpm vertical descent over sheer mountains could feel "comfortable" escapes me. I think that unless the aircraft was already completely uncontrollable for one reason or another pulling the chute will make you a passenger with severely limited options.

As for wearing a chute full time: unless you are doing aerobatics or some sort of risky test flying it seems highly unlikely that you are ever going to encounter a situation where wearing a parachute would save your life. Most closed cabin general aviation aircraft are difficult to get out of while parked on the ramp without wearing a chute let alone in flight with one strapped on your back.
Click to expand...

1500 fpm is only 17 mph. That's a pretty gentle impact compared to a 70+ mph landing into unknown terrain.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
I'm already cramped in the 172. Haven't seen a parachute, but where would it be stored? If it's not on, would the pilot really have time to put it on? "In an emergency, "put on the 'chute"...oh wait...isn't it "Fly the plane"?.
Click to expand...


Fly the plane and put the chute on at the same time. :)

David
 
Martin257 said:
Even though I haven't long started, it hasn't crossed my mind lol. If you were to carry passengers however, they would probably have thoughts of the worse case scenario occurring and wished to have one. In larger aircrafts, it would be nice to know there are parachutes available to bail but i have faith in the Cessna.

http://youtu.be/iQyF9J-i9VY
Click to expand...

Good luck with opening a door in a "larger aircraft" while in flight. Next time you take an airline flight, watch what the FA's have to do in order to open a door while the airplane is at rest on the ground.

Bob Gardner
 
When I was looking to upgrade to another aircraft, I considered the Cirrus which has the BRS. The Chute has credited saves to it's defense and I think it is a worthwhile option. However, it would not be the tipping factor for me in the next aircraft purchase. YMMV......
 
My CFI nearly got killed in a Piper Arrow which had a busted fuel line / pump. Had to put it down in a rough field.

Now he's a Cirrus or twin guy, and won't go back. For those of us who fly in areas like Metro LA (try to find a place to land unexpectedly!), a plane parachute is not just safer; it also adds to the peace of mind for pilot and passengers. I find that many folks who don't want to fly in a small plane are happy to go up with me when they hear about the parachute.

I am much more relaxed now flying low under Class B around the Hollywood Sign and elsewhere, knowing if the unthinkable happens, I have a decent option.

My 2 cents...
 
VWGhiaBob said:
My CFI nearly got killed in a Piper Arrow which had a busted fuel line / pump. Had to put it down in a rough field.

Now he's a Cirrus or twin guy, and won't go back. For those of us who fly in areas like Metro LA (try to find a place to land unexpectedly!), a plane parachute is not just safer; it also adds to the peace of mind for pilot and passengers. I find that many folks who don't want to fly in a small plane are happy to go up with me when they hear about the parachute.

I am much more relaxed now flying low under Class B around the Hollywood Sign and elsewhere, knowing if the unthinkable happens, I have a decent option.

My 2 cents...
Click to expand...

How well do you think the parachute will work as you come crashing through powerlines into buildings?
 
jesse said:
How well do you think the parachute will work as you come crashing through powerlines into buildings?
Click to expand...

Here's the bit that the Cirrus bashers usually miss. You can glide the plane just like any other plane. What this means is, given total engine failure, you can scan the area and decide to, A) Glide to a viable landing site and dead stick down to a traditional landing, or B) Glide to a suitible place to deploy the parachute, ie: one without power lines and buildings, or C) Pull the 'chute where you are and take your chances with the outcome.

See how this system gives you options?

If I'm at too low an altitude to make it to an airport over the mountains, or forest, I'm likely to pull the 'chute and glide helplessly out of control at 17mph vertically and whatever the wind is horizontally at that time rather than gliding in control and impacting whatever at about 80mph horizontally. Just one example. I could think of loads more.
 
I think Jesse understands that quite well, his point was that LA has a lot of bad options for GA period, whether you have a parachute or not. Simply saying "I have a parachute, so I'm fine," ignores some of the realities of the situation.

That said, a recent SR22 parachute incident in the UK had a plane landing in a woman's back yard with obstacles on the way down. Seemed to work out just fine, even though it was definitely a very broken airplane when done.
 
flhrci said:
Not sure what you are trying to say here....
Click to expand...

You make my point for me. Well over 100 deaths, all people specifically trained for parachute ops, jumping from aircraft in straight and level flight, skydiving in benign conditions.

Compare that to an inexperienced pilot jumping from an impaired aircraft over potentially hostile terrain. One or the other will be operant, either the aircraft will be uncontrollable or over hostile terrain, most other situations will see the pilot glide the airplane to an off-airport landing.

Of course the other variable is the pilot has to decide to abandon his or her aircraft and get out in time. Plenty of people have failed to activate the BRS chute in Cirri (you know, the ones with the big red handle that say in case of emergency, pull here). How quickly are you going to bail out of your airplane?
 
Jesse, you raise a valid point...that there may be a few circumstances where the 'chute may not work. So far...and I've studied the crash record...it works the vast majority of the time. Representative exceptions are late deployments (<500 ft agl) and mid-air's where the plane is destroyed anyway. Some Cirrus pilots have been hesitant to use the 'chute and ended up in a crash. Now Cirrus trains us, "Pull early. Pull often" in reference to the 'chute pull tab.

And actually, having some obstacles...especially trees...can help. Several Cirrus planes have encountered obstacles on the way down (like the recent one in the UK). What they do is slow the plane before it hits the ground. In fact, more than one Cirrus has been flyable again after encountering obstacles on the way down.

And you're right about LA...a even a 'chute landing could be a challenge. Nothing in life is ever 100%. But I'd much rather have the 'chute option if I lose an engine than not.

If I flew somewhere other than LA, I might feel differently about this issue. But 'round these parts, a lost engine is really, really, really bad news.

I'll take the 'chute option.
 
I am in the process of buying a CTSW, and the standard ballistic parachute is a very nice selling point to me. It simply enlarges the "envelope" of survivable mishaps.

I'm amused by the people saying "training and practice are better" as if you can't have training, practice/experience, AND a parachute. Like many things in aviation, a "belt and suspenders" approach is certainly safer than either alone. Training and experience are not going to save you from somebody else's mistake resulting in a midair collision or a catastrophic failure caused by a mechanic's improper maintenance. It's nice to have a possible solution to those events other than making sure your will is up to date.

However, these comments are only regarding ballistic chutes. I'm not sure wearing a parachute in most GA airplanes is practical, or even really increases safety since getting out of the aircraft safely in a timely manner is seriously in doubt in most aircraft.
 
I see a lot of macho attitudes here along the lines of "I can land this plane no matter what"

Personally, I would rather have more options then less. If I never use it, great.

I would rather spend the last seconds of my life actually TRYING to save it, then go the route of the captain and go down with my ship helplessly. If I dont ever make it out, okay... at least I tried VS. watching the earth speed through my windshield with my hands on the yoke.

Im a big strong guy (notice the avatar, ha) but I also carry my sidearm with me in the plane. If the engine goes out or whatever the case may be where I have a few minutes to glide you can bet I'll have the parachute strapped on my body and the hinges on my 235 will be opened up with a whole clip and a donkey kick will take care of the rest. But im getting out of that plane, you'd be surprised what your capable of in life or death situations. Remember the video where the man and his son crashed his seaplane and he got out? He doesn't know how he did, but he got out (sadly, the boy couldn't be saved but I fly alone 99% of the time). Point is, it can be done.... maybe not all the time, but some of us with the FIGHT response vs flight (no pun intended) will fight to the very end to live unlike those who will go down with their ship due to fear, stupidity or just the "I CAN DO IT" attitude when the situation is helpless.

GRANTED, we aren't talking about pulling the chute or jumping out of an airplane over flat terrain. Its a situation where the best case scenario is leaving the plane (uncontrollable spin, over water, power lines, trees, mountains ect.) Survival is low if something goes wrong, but when you add the factor that you gotta get out of a plane that could crunch,explode,trap, sink.... that just lowers it.

I dunno, maybe im rambling, some of you will follow me but in the end there is one thing that rings true that I tell my guys here at work.

YOU are responsible for YOUR personal safety. In the event of an emergency, do what you believe it best for you. Its your life.
 
Last edited:
bullwinkle said:
I'm amused by the people saying "training and practice are better" as if you can't have training, practice/experience, AND a parachute.
Click to expand...

For most of us the nut is only so big, and we have to prioritize things into "want to do" and "must do". I would prioritize a parachute well below training and maintenance. With the latter two the former is far less likely to ever be needed.
 
I can't imagine too many likely scenarios where I'd rather resign my fate to a parachute over putting the airplane down under control just about anywhere. But there are certainly a few. For all those people that said you'd rather spend the money on lessons or more airplane over a 'chute - would you buy a car without airbags if you could get it $1,000 cheaper? Would you feel good about putting your family in that car knowing you saved $1,000 toward going to Disney World? You don't plan on ever using your airbags and they only help in certain types of mishaps so it's about the same thing, right?

I'll take the safer airplane, the recurrent training, spin upset recovery training, solid maintenance, and if the whole airframe parachute is available, I'll take that too. I fly a lot of acro in my Pitts S2C, almost always solo where I'm not required to wear a parachute but I'd never consider flying the airplane without it.
 
Last edited:
Right, and what Bob said - good luck getting the doors open on any aircraft to bail out. If it's not a door that is designed to depart the airplane when you want, you're probably not getting out anyway. Aerobatic aircraft have canopies that eject and depart the airframe to make a way to escape. I good buddy used to fly an RV-7 with a canopy that slide toward the back. He wore a 'chute until one day the canopy came open in flight and opened about an inch. He couldn't budge it with all his strength to open it farther or close it. His parachute would have done him no good at all. He modified his canopy to one that he could jettison.
 
PittsDriver said:
I can't imagine too many likely scenarios where I'd rather resign my fate to a parachute over putting the airplane down under control just about anywhere. But there are certainly a few. For all those people that said you'd rather spend the money on lessons or more airplane over a 'chute - would you buy a car without airbags if you could get it $1,000 cheaper? Would you feel good about putting your family in that car knowing you saved $1,000 toward going to Disney World? You don't plan on ever using your airbags and they only help in certain types of mishaps so it's about the same thing, right?
Click to expand...

The difference is that your most likely reason for crashing an airplane is you screwing up. Training to help keep you from screwing up will reduce this probability. Spending the money on going to Disney World will not. So in reality, we love to spend money on gismos because they're fun when we should be spending money on ourselves.

That said, what I'd prefer to see is spend money on gismos AND spend money on ourselves. Belt and suspenders.

Oh, and I don't much think about airbags when I buy a car, just like I don't think much about parachutes when buying a plane. In both cases I buy what I want. My current car has only a driver's side airbag. I feel perfectly comfortable putting my family in that car, even though mostly it's what I commute to work in.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The difference is that your most likely reason for crashing an airplane is you screwing up. Training to help keep you from screwing up will reduce this probability.
Click to expand...

And yet, in a car even when it's someone else's "fault" you can still manage risks by driving more defensively. Risk management is very apropos to both activities and the belt and suspenders approach of which you speak is a time tested valid approach.

Where I thought this thread was going to go was the criticism that was leveled at Cirrus when BRS was a new thing. Was it making pilots feel safer and were they accepting more risk because they had the parachute? There's a few saves where someone launched off into insane weather or steamed ahead into ice and if they did that because they had the parachute it's still just poor risk management and not to be blamed on the BRS.

I guess my car analogy was meant to say that a BRS to me is a lot like traction control, ABS, side impact airbags, et. al. in cars. You really can't argue rationally that it's not safer to have and hopefully you'll never need to use it. And, if you argue that you should spend the ABS money on a performance driving class, you're right back in the same place as the BRS argument says I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top