Ahhh, c’mon… they can buff that out.
The left seat student was killed in this crash by exactly what you show with the ultralight. As you can see, the nose pitched down and everything from the throttle forward was gone.
Plane_crash_injuries_2_in_Lake_Wales_3207520000_21890605_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
I think any deployment low to the ground and still flying or beyond Vr is a very bad idea. However, if you’re skidding off the runway heading for a concrete wall it’s absolutely viable. As discussed earlier it won’t help “much”, but even if it scrubs 5k off your speed at impact it’s worth it.
There’s a big difference between the effects of chute drag on the ground versus in the air. Without question it will nose you into the ground badly even at a few feet off the ground. If I recall the original OP was asking about pulling it on the ground, so my answer would be yes.
With the ultralight example, he was airborne and it caused the aircraft to enter a very bad pitch up. If it would have inflated before he hit Vr, it would have just slowed the plane and likely not let it get to Vr at all. If you’re at 50k on the ground in a Cirrus it would be impossible for that to happen.
I want to add two thoughts to this discussion for contemplation:
-
Studying crash landings of various types over several decades, the statistics have shown that pilots that attempt to contact the ground “under control” are far more likely to survive than those that crash out of control. As the ultralight video shows, a chute deployment renders the aircraft out of control by definition. The chute needs enough time and altitude to stabilize and slow the speed of descent to make that option “safe”. It is not true that pulling the chute at ANY altitude is better.
-
The Cirrus parachute has never been tested as a drogue chute. Therefore, using it on the ground makes you a test pilot. Moreover, the initial firing of the rocket is straight up, not backward in its initial trajectory. Given the time and direction to fully deploy, I doubt it would have any positive effect on the ground. But there is no data. That is just my guess. Since there is no data to support that use, I would rather see the pilot focus on steering the aircraft away from any “hard” object rather that get focused on pulling the chute on the ground.
If anyone has a plane I can borrow I’m willing to give it a test go on the ground. [8-|]
I agree with you here. At VR on a short field when you hear a pop and can’t rotate…
Levers back, stand on the brakes and consider CAPS. In that scenario, drag is your (only) friend.
Haha, true… but so does taking it off road at 65kts. Great airplane, super-crappy ATV.
Something to try in a simulator for sure.
I do not believe there is a simulator program that can accurately depict this as it has never been done.
I might suggest that if you are coming to the end of a runway and there is a concrete wall (how many runways end in a concrete wall?) your better bet would be to ground loop the airplane. Pulling the chute offers no guarantee of anything in that situation. The whole idea is to dissipate energy so if you do hit something that energy will be less. Ground looping will dissipate energy. No one knows if pulling the chute will.
Not a concrete wall but the Marlboro (9B1) airport’s relatively short runway has a wall of trees at one end and a road at the other with a chain link fence at the roadside. The fence has (or had the last time I was there) a stop sign mounted on it as a reminder that it’s bad etiquette to smash the fence into the road: http://www.wickedlocal.com/storyimage/WL/20100923/NEWS/309239201/AR/0/AR-309239201.jpg
I have to agree. If I found myself in that situation or going into trees at the other end I still don’t think I would pull. No evidence that it will help and it certainly could hurt. It may be a parachute but CAPS is not this: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAANBU9RbWeI_GZKt2eCu3DyvSY9EFSU6BXzA1l4YkVkqHXOSUgg
In this scenario you’re about to screw the pooch and go to heaven anyway, so maybe pulling the the chute would give you the cred to hang out with Chuck Yeager in the test pilot lounge.
Michael:
Each of these situations is markedly unique. Most runway overrun accidents do not result in death. It all depends on what you hit and how hard to hit it. In addition, the rate of deceleration is the key component to the outcome. Given each scenario will involved different elements in that equation, it is impossible to calculate all of them and at the very instant the scenario is unfolding is not the time to have to figure this out.
So we need a pre-rehearsed game plan on what to do if we ever have a runway overshoot situation. Since it is impossible to know how, where or when that event will happen, what is the best course of planning?
Time and time again the statistics show that keeping an airplane **under control **results in the best statistical outcome. Most do not die and many are “walk away” events. As just one crude example of how staying under control works; on any routine landing, the energy needed to dissipate from short final to stopping on the runway is quite large. Yet it is done routinely every day with the accident, injury or adverse outcome. That energy is far greater than that encountered in a chute pull and vertical descent. Yet the airplane is always damaged in a chute pull when it hits the ground. What is the difference? It is all about having control of the airplane! However, when you are not in control, a chute pull is the statistical best option.
So, to me, when a runway overrun is in progress, the outcome can best be predicted based on controllability of the aircraft. You can still steer the airplane on the ground when in control. You can often avoid hitting hard objects when in control. And you can dissipate energy over a greater distance using friction if you can avoid hitting an immovable object. Advocating using techniques that might distract you or put you out of control during these events is counterproductive for all the reasons outlined above.
Brian - I was just kidding about the Chuck Yeager stuff. I posted earlier saying pretty much what you just said and in all seriousness I totally agree with you.
What do you think about rolling to one side and digging a wing into the runway or dirt at the end of the runway before impacting the wall? Breaking the wing then tumbling around would probably reduce some of the kinetic energy, but it would be a terrifying and unpredictable situation possibly involving a fire due to a gas tank rupture. Maybe a slow crash would have better odds of survival than an instantaneous impact though.
Michael:
That is a very good thought and one worth contemplating considering all factors.
One disadvantage to the Cirrus construction is that it has much stronger wings than an average metal GA plane. As a result, dissipating energy by clipping a wing is less effective with the Cirrus. On the other hand, the cabin strength acts as a roll cage to some degree so that part helps.
Again, no one best technique can cover all situations. But having a generic game plan well thought out ahead if time is better than no plan at all.
In all seriousness I likely would never pull it on the ground either due to the loss of control.
With the going into trees example, I think it would be better to use whatever breaking/rudder authority you have to make sure the fuselage doesn’t directly impact a big tree. Try to split them.
I’m going through the king training and he says the main rule of flying is don’t hit anything. However, if you’re going to hit something, don’t hit it with the fuselage. (or something to that effect)