![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Morgans" wrote in message news ![]() "Garry O" wrote One of the themes developing here it the recoverability of the air frame, what a crock!! I don't think that was the thrust in this part of the thread. It perhaps was elsewhere, but here, the level parachute landing vs. tail up or tail down is being discussed. It seemed someone said the ultralight type aircraft they were talking about had the chute rigged from the tail. I was stating that the fuselage, landing gear and seats offered much better crush distance (equating directly to peak G forces experienced by the occupants) that would a tail up landing. I stick by that observation for well designed aircraft. The landing gear will crush, and so will proper seat supports, thus giving maximum protection to the people in the plane. 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" I never have been in a position to pull a chute in a plane, but I purposely drove off an inline in a van rather than roll down the incline, and in that case, I most definitely thought "this is going to hurt" in one millisecond during the crash. I made the right choice, because I did not roll, and I most certainly would have if I had not made the conscious choice to drive directly off of the drop-off. If a person decides to pull a chute, they most likely have decided the plane is a write-off. It only could be a bonus if it is not. -- Jim in NC My fault, I was replying to Oliver Arend and in particular this part "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" A sentiment that others seemed to share. I by no means think that is all they thought of but rather they seemed fixated on that particular argument. While none of the AC I have flown have had a BRS installed I know that I would not pull the handle unless all other options had been exhausted and F^(K the airframe, if it gave up its life saving mine then so be it, AC can be re-built or another purchased, my kids and wife can not so easily replace me, or so I would like to think ;-) -- Garry O |
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 |