« BehindTheMedspeak: 'Handedness, Homicide, and Negative Frequency-Dependent Selection' | Home | A Study of Reading Habits - by Philip Larkin »
December 26, 2004
Ballistic Recovery System - 'What color is your parachute?'
What color is a smile?
That's the color I think best describes how you'll feel when your small plane suddenly loses power and begins its death spiral, only to have it interrupted by the jolt of one of this company's small plane parachutes unfurling.
Their most advanced model can carry nearly 4,000 pounds.
So far they've sold about 500 parachute systems at $16,000 apiece to pilots who want that extra comfort of knowing they'll survive an in-flight emergency.
Small planes can weigh up to 2,000 pounds, but regional jets weigh around 80,000 pounds, over 20 times what the parachute can handle.
In addition, the jets travel at over 600 m.p.h., compared to the 175 m.p.h. of small planes.
Nevertheless, the company's been given $670,000 by NASA to design a new generation of emergency parachutes that will work on small jets and allow them to be steered by pilots as they drift to the ground.
Watch the video of the parachute in action here, and see if you can visualize the color of your smile as you look up at the beautiful sight.
Since being approved by regulators in 1998, the parachutes have safely landed four planes, saving eight lives.
In addition, dozens of other people in smaller parachute-equipped ultralight planes that resemble motorized gliders have been gently brought to earth by these devices.
Last year in the U.S. alone, 626 people died in small plane crashes, compared to 81 aboard commercial airlines.
December 26, 2004 at 10:01 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5dea53ef00d83432517c53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ballistic Recovery System - 'What color is your parachute?':
Comments
Speed and mass do no rule out parachutes for faster and larger airplanes. Systems of multiple parachutes are used to decelerate from extremely high speeds, witness the upcoming Huygens probe upcoming descent through Titan's atmosphere. I've personally been involved in the delivering bulldozers and earthmovers by parachute.
Safety's only opponent in the development and deployment of such systems for larger and faster aircraft is economics. TWA 800, KAL 007, and United 232 each could have have saved many lives had emergency parachute recovery systems been onboard. This wouldn't eliminate large passenger plane deaths as some of these occur due to problems in very low altitude flight where there may be insufficient time for parachutes to deploy.
The power of economics to deny safety is most clearly demonstrated in the FAA's refusal to mandate nitrogen systems for airplane fuel tanks. TWA 800's inflight explosion is blamed on the explosion of the center fuel tank on this 747. Sparks from an electrical device in the tank are thought to have ignited the air fuel mixture in the tank. If the fuel in these tanks were displaced by pure nitrogen ( a feasible, practical safety measure which has been repeatedly suggested in the aviation industry since the 1950's ), then such an explosion would be impossible. The TWA 800 safety investigation resulted in recommending nitrogen displacement systems. This recommendation has been sitting on a shelf for years. As a result, when you fly, you sit on and surrounded by fuel tanks which contain both jet fuel and ambient air - which contains oxygen of course. Like nitrogen systems for fuel tanks, parachutes for large aircraft will likely be forgone for decades to come. The value of human life is measured in dollars, including dollars the airlines feel we are and are not likely to pay for a quick trip to wherever. Both parachutes and nitrogen systems are likely to add less than 10% to the cost of a ticket. Really.
Posted by: Thomas Bluhm | Dec 26, 2004 2:20:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
