It comes standard with Cirrus, Why it's not used by the big manufacturers, e.g. Cessna, Piper...
2007-02-24 15:17:35 · 5 answers · asked by MD-11 2 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
A case where the gains don't quite outweigh losses.Think about it for a moment:
You need sufficient altitude for this baby to deploy before you hit the ground, and you can't be in a spin or something (or that thing won't deploy properly any way!) Which makes it ONLY useful in VERY limited circumstances.
If you have enough altitude, then it's not that hard to perform "spin recovery" and "stall recovery" maneuvers. In fact, it would be one of the first things taught by instructors. Thus, negating the need for the device.
The device is really ONLY useful when you basically ran out of fuel, and can't land due to lack of flat space. Then the vertical approach would make a bit of sense. And how often does that really happen? And why are you flying into unlandable space with limited fuel capacity in the first place?
2007-02-24 20:44:33 · answer #1 · answered by Kasey C 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The reason it comes standard with Cirrus is because it cannot recover from a spin.
In order for a single engine aircraft to be airworthy it must be able to recover from a spin.
Since the design does not allow it a ballistic chute was added.
When and if the chute has to be deployed it does not save the aircraft . Large strips are torn out as the chute is deployed. Yes it can save lives and it already has, however the aircraft is rendered useless.
Also a chute will only work at higher altitudes. There have been many fatal accidents occurring in the circuit and at take off.
Being low to the ground does not give a pilot enough time to react with an aircraft that will not react sufficiently in a low altitude.
The chute also has a big trade off in weight. If an aircraft does not require it, the manufacturer will not install it.
2007-02-25 09:58:58 · answer #2 · answered by dyke_in_heat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The cost is considerable and although the system is cretited with a number of "saves", there have been more fatal accidents in the Cirrus where the parachute system was not used at all.
An easier question to answer is "Why don't owners of existing light aircraft retrofit ballistic parachute systems to their planes?"
2007-02-24 23:51:24 · answer #3 · answered by Gordon B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm just waiting for the first lawsuit when one of those things has an uncommanded deployment.
2007-02-26 02:42:49 · answer #4 · answered by grumpy geezer 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Expensive, heavy and unnecessary.
2007-02-25 01:24:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋