![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Flaps_50!" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 8:05 pm, "Morgans" wrote: "Oliver Arend" wrote Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/ s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage). Some airplanes, like Cirrius, have a harness that supports the aircraft, and the aircraft comes down in a more or less level attitude. Are you saying that your aircraft have the harness attatched to the aircraft so that it always comes down nose first, or just that it will sometimes get tangled and come down nose first? It would seem like it would be a big advantage to come down level, for the aircraft and the passengers. -- When you pancake in the risk is to your spine and you need proper cushions/sear design to take care of that. As far as I know, with some (?most) parachute systems you hit the ground at about 23 mph which is equivalent to dropping the plane from about 15 feet. Such an impact will probably do serious damage to the plane making it a write off. So, I don't rate the planes chances much. Whether the planes structural failure will affect your chances to climb out unaided is moot. I think that a pull on the handle should be considered to be the last resort when you know you are not able to glide to a forced landing. I imagine that in some terrain the chute may be a bad idea compared to a pilot controlled crash. So IMHO the chute is a good device to have as an option but also has some negative features and needs proper training for best use. For example, suppose your engine fails at 500' -should you pull the handle? Which is safer, to land in the tops of trees or fall vertically under parachute and risk cabin penetration? In mountains, do you want to parachute into the sides or crash land on a ridge or valley? I hope you see my point. Cheers One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame, what a crock!! if the pilot feels that the situation is so far beyond his/her capabilities then I think that any damage to the airframe is the furthest thing from their mind and rather they have taken a course of action designed to make their survivability a priority. honestly do you think someone would pull the chute if they only thought "maybe I can't do this" or when they thought "****!! this is going to hurt" -- [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAA falling further into chaos | TheTruth[_2_] | Piloting | 2 | March 12th 08 06:05 AM |
Batavia Air 737 loses wing segment in flight | BernieFlyer[_2_] | Piloting | 2 | November 25th 07 10:05 AM |
FAA Chaos | MyCoxaFallen | Piloting | 12 | June 6th 05 04:54 PM |
DC Chaos, 9/11 and other assorted FAA diasters | MyCoxaFallen | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | June 2nd 05 06:23 PM |