MadSci Network: Engineering
Query:

Re: WHY DON'T PASSANGER AIRCRAFTS HAVE LARGE PARACHUTEES TO PREVENT CRASHES?

Date: Sun Apr 9 12:08:18 2000
Posted By: Roy T. Maloney, former paratrooper, ballistic parachutes, Dropzone: Skyhook 5
Area of science: Engineering
ID: 949371813.Eg
Message:

I am in total agreement with your premise. I believe all aircraft including 
jumbo jets should have ballistic chutes.

In an emergency for jumbo jets, they could ballistically deploy a 150foot parafoil (wing parachute), with a similar emergency parafoil in lower or bi-plane position. A total of 300 feet of parafoil, acting as a wing. The wing span on a 747 is 212 feet.

A ballistic ribbon parafoil can deploy at 500 miles per hour.

Why not, as per your question? I believe it is because of money, lack of knowledge, status quo, and NIH (not invented here) -- if the manufacturer did not think of it, it can't be any good.

I have a friend, who has flown for United Air Lines for 30 years, and a captain on 747's, who believs as I do, and apparently yourself...that it is a no brainer.

"The reason jumbo jets do not have ballistic parachutes is because of NIH, not invented here. If the company did not think of it it can't be any good. Also money and they like the status quo. Why change? Ballistic ribbon parafoils will become obvious in about 2 years. Will use 150 foot span parafoils that already exist. The X-38 "lifeboat" is a perfect example of how to glide a plane. It has been tested by dropping from a space shuttle. It uses a GPS controlled parafoil. All automatic."


Current Queue | Current Queue for Engineering | Engineering archives

Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Engineering.



MadSci Home | Information | Search | Random Knowledge Generator | MadSci Archives | Mad Library | MAD Labs | MAD FAQs | Ask a ? | Join Us! | Help Support MadSci


MadSci Network, webadmin@www.madsci.org
© 1995-2000. All rights reserved.