11 Responses to “Why Don’t Airlines Install One Huge Parachute In Case Of Crash Landing Like With Columbia Space Shuttle?”

1. Pilot & Mathematician Spaniard Says:
   October 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 pm

   There has only ever been one large aircraft with a parachute on the back.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Pag…
   It was the Handley Page Victor.
   It would cost too much, would add weight and this would cause a run of different results and leading to spending more fuel on it.

2. Vincent G Says:
   October 24th, 2009 at 1:33 am

   I fail to see how Columbia’s accident can relate. It burned up on reentry, at a speed that would have totally destroyed a parachute in millisecond.
   As for fitting one huge parachute to an airliner, there are several issues.
   First, is that the chute has to be properly attached to airframe components able to support the full weight of the plane. That means the wing root, a place that is at premium because this is where the main landing gear are attached (and stowed), and that volume is taken by fuel and equipment.
   Second, the deployment of the chute means that has to have a way of being unfolded without risking betting entangled with the airframe, and that implies attaching it high, and possibly using deployment rockets (that is what small aircraft using parachute systems use: a rocket or a mortar. But of course, the planes with ballistic parachute recovery systems are small and do not fly as fast as airliners do, so their parachute is not subjected to speed of Mach 0.8).
   Third: the volume and weight of the parachute system takes away a significant proportion of the payload (cargo or passengers).
   In fact, parachute systems are likely to cause more potential incidents (deployment at wrong time, interference with other systems, risks during development and experimental testing) than it risk helping. Have you heard of any case where a parachute would have helped an airliner? Well, I haven’t. And I am an aerospace engineer, with now nearly 30 years in the business.
   As for retro-rocket, the attached link can give you an idea why it is not being used either.

3. Chris Says:
   October 24th, 2009 at 5:50 am

   It would be to expensive and how much good would it relay do. When most planes crash they are usually still somewhat flying forward and crash during the landing. There has been times that a plane breaks up in the air but if it is falling apart what good is a parachute going to do.
   Cirrus aircraft do have a ballistic recovery parachute on them that can be used in a emergency but that is a 4 seat plane compared to a 300 seat airliner.http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/parachute/

4. strech Says:
   October 24th, 2009 at 10:39 am

   Slow the speed?
   I’m reading the Columbia Space Shuttle Crew Survival Investigation Team report (from the Houston Chronicle, dated 01/25/2009). It states, “18 seconds after 8 a.m., CST, on Feb. 1 — the exact moment the shuttle began to break up while flying 11,000 mph at 181,000 feet.”
   What kind of parachute is going to hold together at 11,000 mph?
   Also, a parachute needs air to work. How much air is at 181,000 feet?

5. Paolo Says:
   October 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

   kid… go to sleep…
   try to jump from the 10th floor with an umbrella…
   the same thing that happens to you will happen to an aircraft that would try to “glide” with a parachute…
   and the parachute on the Columbia Space Shuttle is used only to brake because the space shuttle is not able to generate reverse thrust like commercial airplanes can.

6. reid r Says:
   October 24th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

   well first off the parachute on the space craft designated while entering the atmosphere so it was a bad idea just like putting one on every airliner in the world. get real!

7. Sitegrinder Says:
   October 24th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

   Great idea….. why not just give each passenger their own parachute, or fly really low, or even better make them out of black box material…. What other weight could we add.. Go back to your flight simulator

8. Bman49 Says:
   October 24th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

   It’s really simple, the cost. A space shuttle goes to space every couple of years. An airplane flies everyday.

9. Smartphone Software Says:
   October 25th, 2009 at 2:12 am

   Would you want a parachuting plane to land on your house?

10. jtk15sc1 Says:
    October 25th, 2009 at 3:18 am

    god stop asking this question people

11. Wordpress Autoblog Software Says:
    October 25th, 2009 at 5:42 am

    I’m surprised nobody pointed out that in the case of the Columbia, no parachute could have helped the spacecraft. It was destroyed due to a small break in the heat shielding on the left wing. Considering the incredible speeds and monumental heat of re-entry, the effect of having a break in the heat shielding there would have been very similar to casually putting an oxy-acetylene cutting torch to the wing of any other aircraft.
    So, in essence, the internal structure of the wing — which was already undergoing enormous stresses from the forces of re-entry — soon failed. This caused the spacecraft to lose stability and break up due to its speed and the friction/compression heat from the relative airflow. If I remember correctly, it was travelling at something like Mach 15 at the time; the SR-71, when travelling at one-fifth of that speed, experienced compression heating of something like 230*C (450*F).
    Now, with retrorockets, I understand you’re asking about an airliner and not the space shuttle. You would have to put them in the front and lower portion of the aircraft, to decelerate its forward motion and reduce the sink rate. Even assuming the weight of enough solid propellant to stop an airliner and arrest its descent at the critical moment was not prohibitive, you’d have to assume that the system was undamaged and functioning correctly. Why is the airliner crashing in the first place? It must be some kind of massive system failure, because even with an amazing amount of damage, pilots have managed to bring their aircraft at least close to the ground at a reasonably controlled speed. No retro rockets there, just skill and training.
    So, the aircraft is so fracked up that the flight crew is unable to prevent an uncontrolled collision with terrain, and the retro-rocket system happens to be functioning like a dream? I don’t think so.
    As far as the airliner parachute question goes, it’s been adequately answered by others.

Leave a Reply