Aircraft Parachute Systems, Research Paper Example

Despite the fact that aircraft crashes are rather rare, safety systems for them are vitally important. The thing is that any problems with the jet in the sky lead to a fatal outcome for both people in it and the aircraft itself. Thus, aircrafts need to get extra margins of protection. Moreover, they have to be as more efficient and useful as it is possible. In these terms, why a parachute can be a rescue facility for a person and cannot be for a jet? Of course, a person and a jet have quite radical differences. However, the idea of a parachute for an aircraft is not as improbable as it seems to be.

The history of appearance of aircraft parachute systems is associated with Boris Popov. As it is stated by BRS History (n.d.):

Prior to 1975, few had attempted to implement the idea to design a parachute for an aircraft, even though it had been talked about for nearly a century. In that year, Boris Popov of Saint Paul, Minnesota, survived a 400-foot fall in a collapsed hang glider. “As I fell, I became most angry at my inability to do something,” Popov explained. “I had time to throw a parachute. I knew they existed, but they had not yet been introduced to the hang gliding community.” This event led Popov to invent the whole-aircraft parachute system and to found Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS) in 1980 (para. 1).

This statement follows that the idea of such rescue facility as a parachute for an aircraft had appeared long before it was actually invented. However, Popov was the first to implement these theoretical wishes into life. Nowadays Ballistic Recovery Systems or, as they are also named, Aircraft Parachute Systems, are rather popular among the owners of light aircrafts. In fact, this is an evidential proof that such safety system helps ensure the minimization of property damage and saving hundreds of people’s lives. Still, in order to understand the way this system works better, how efficient it is, its virtues and shortcomings, it is crucial to analyze what, in fact, Ballistic Recovery System is, and how its design and usability influence the results of its usage and its effectiveness.

Nowadays, Ballistic Recovery Systems as a company, according to Campbell (1988), have developed and produce a “production-model parachute recovery system for private aircraft – the GARD (general aviation recovery device)” (p. 110). However, they still can be used for ultra light and light aircrafts. The technology that is being implicated in today’s aircraft parachute systems has been the aim of the research of many years. Overall, ballistic recovery system is designed for usage in situations where a safe flight is thought by a pilot to be no longer possible. For instance, it can be loss of control or engine failure.

The notion “ballistic”, as stated in BRS Ballistic Parachutes: Information for Emergency Personnel (n.d.), in terms of parachute systems “refers to a means of extracting a parachute. For Ballistic Recovery Systems today, this means a rocket-deployed emergency parachute system” (p. 2). The parachute is usually stored in a hatch that covers the compartment. Moreover, from this place the system can be activated by using a handle that deploys a solid fuel rocket. It may also happen that the rocket stays live even after the activation of the system, when it is not deployed. This possibility may cause problems, which will be discussed in part related to the systems’ shortcomings.

In general, the aircraft parachute systems can be used not only for general aviation aircraft. Additionally, they can be the way of recovery for unmanned aircraft system, or else, unmanned aircraft vehicle. As for such aircrafts, according to Austin (2011), “the parachute must be released by remote control over or near the point at which it is required the aircraft to land” (p. 178). Moreover, out of four existing recovery methods for unmanned aircraft vehicles, a parachute deployment, currently, appears to be the most usual method, even though it has disadvantages.

Campbell (1988), analyzing the history of the development of Ballistic Aircraft Systems, states that in order to create the examples that save people’s lives and property today, a lot of work was done. A case in point, engineers and researchers at chute making company and at an aviation systems engineering firm were working for years achieving today’s technology of parachute recovery. Campbell (1988) refers to the inventor of BRS, Boris Popov by mentioning his statement that “[t]he most interesting part of the development was the work on the parachute designs themselves . . . [w]e originally thought that we knew all we needed to know about the chutes – but then we learned otherwise” (p. 110). Thus, the design of a parachute for an aircraft is equally important as its functionality and reliability.

As regards the design, it is crucial in terms of guaranteeing the system’s reliability and safety. A private aircraft presupposes tremendous weight and speed, and, therefore, the main aim of a parachute canopy’s construction and design is to handle such loads. At the same time, the BRS parachute has “to be extremely lightweight and capable of being packed into a small container”, as stated in BRS History (n.d., para. 2). Moreover, it is indicated there that the parachute needs “to deploy quickly at slow speeds to allow for low altitude emergency saves, but more slowly at high speeds to prevent structural failure of the canopy in high-speed diving emergencies” (BRS History, n.d., para. 2).

Initially, special non-porous chute fabrics made of rip-stop nylon was used for the parachutes. The construction of the cloth mentioned was rather innovative, allowing little air diffusion and letting a canopy be more efficient by descending more slowly. This material met the requirement of lightness and strength; still, this was not enough to carry a heavy full-laden aircraft. The thing was that the parachute was presupposed to deploy and open in a gradual manner, not overstressing any of the elements of a system. According to Popov (as cited in Campbell, 1988), “[a]n orderly deployment is crucial to minimize the chance of a malfunction and to prolong the opening sequence” (p. 110).

Finally, the research of many years led to the application of solid-fuel rocket that activates mechanically. Its main function is to draw the canopy out to full extension preliminary to the opening of the parachute. Further, owing to this rocket, the consecutive deployment can be preserved (Campbell, 1988). Considering the canopy, it was also renovated by means of research. In fact, engineers developed a “semi-spherical” canopy with flattened top. This canopy has considerably slow opening time – about two seconds. Johnson claims (as cited in Campbell, 1988) that “[t]he semi-spherical canopy is something of an airspeed sensor. It simple will not open completely until the speed has lessened to a safe range” (p. 110). As for this canopy, it opens gradually with the upper part opening first and acting like drogue, and then with the chute opening fully only after everything slows down. Moreover, according to Johnson (as cited in Campbell, 1988), “[t]his helps eliminate the need for a complicated reefing system – a device that holds the canopy partially closed until the speed slows enough” (p. 110). It is precisely this reefing system that appears to be one of the biggest components of the success of Ballistic Recovery Systems. This device consists of a sliding ring, which meets all the functions required. Furthermore, the so-called “slider” is patented and enables the company to create chutes of bigger sizes for aircrafts that are faster and more technologically advanced. Equally important is that the reefing system has been the means of saving the lives of many pilots and passengers of jets around the world (BRS History, n.d.).

However, despite the fact that the deployment system was working correctly, the other aim for the researchers was to make the aircraft parachute systems light and small, so that they can be installed without expensive frame modifications. Even though the weight of the fabric is light, the canopy cannot just be stuffed into a bag and zipped. Instead, it “must be baked and pressure-packed to reduce its weight and volume and to protect it from mildew and fungus during long-term storage”, as claimed by Campbell (1988, p. 110). Due to research and modifications, now the resulting package with canopy is 15-by-10-by-6-inch vacuum-packed bag that weights about 27 pounds. It follows that the whole aircraft parachute systems meets the standards of size and weight, as well.

According to Campbell (1988), an aircraft parachute system is installed in the roof liner and near the center of gravity of the plane. Typically, the system consists of a container that contains a bag with canopy and parachute lines; a compact booster rocket of high reliability; and an attachment bridle.

Despite the fact that ballistic recovery systems are rather widespread among general aviation jets, and it has been saving people’s lives and property from damage, it still has some shortcomings. Firstly, a controlled descent rate is assisted by the deployment of a parachute, so that, in many cases, at the level at which the parachute is deployed, the pilot has to maintain a radio contact subject. Otherwise, an aircraft can be drifted with the wind, letting the pilot no opportunity to control the path of the jet. Moreover, the survival in an in-flight incident cannot be guaranteed by the deployment of a parachute. One more hazard from ballistic recovery systems, according to BRS Ballistic Parachutes: Information for Emergency Personnel (n.d.) is that the parachute is helpful only in case the pilot uses it. Thus, if pilot the pilot is unable to deploy it for physical reasons or feels he can rescue an aircraft without it, the system does not work. It means that in case of non-deployment people still die in air crashes. Another hazard stated in BRS Ballistic Parachutes: Information for Emergency Personnel (n.d.) is for rescue workers who usually take light aircrafts to get to the scene of an accident. Sometimes they have to work understanding that the pilot did not activate the safety device, and so, there is a high risk of working next to a ballistic device ready to fire.

Other researchers also consider different drawbacks of aircraft parachute systems. For instance, Austin (2011) finds out that “the aircraft must then be returned to the launcher from its point of impact which may be a considerable distance and probably requiring the addition of a further transport vehicle to the system” (p. 178). This difficulty mostly concerns unmanned aircraft vehicles, but it can also be related to general aviation jet, because even having stayed alive, a pilot cannot take an aircraft back to the launch point. Another difficulty of using ballistic recovery systems stated by Austin (2011) is that in case of the deployment of a system, “the aircraft/parachute combination is at the mercy of wind, and its precise point of touch-down may, therefore, be unpredictable” (p. 178). Due to this shortcoming, an aircraft may face a damage-resulting translational velocity caused by an inconvenient angle. Or else, the aircraft sweep into some obstacles like trees.

Even though the ballistic recovery systems have some drawbacks and difficulties in their use, they have been saving people lives and they continue to do so. However, initially it was quite difficult to sell aircraft parachute systems to pilots, as claimed by Campbell (1988). Nevertheless, Ballistic Recovery Systems are quite successful in producing, selling, and installing aircraft parachute systems. According to BRS History (n.d.), the BRS Company is certified to install their parachutes on aircraft Cessna 150/152. Moreover, it “has sold more than 25,000 of its parachute systems and has saved more than 199 lives” (para. 6). Further, by 2010 ballistic recovery systems saved 250 lives (BRS History, n.d.). As far as this company is almost a monopolist in producing aircraft parachute systems, these numbers refer to the worldwide use of ballistic recovery systems.

Simply put, aircraft parachute systems are intended to saving people’s lives and not letting the damage of property by not letting an aircraft fall after in an accident. This system has gone through years of research and modifications to meet the requirement, finally. Nowadays it looks like a small container installed in the aircraft. Besides, parachute recovery is used in both general aviation jets and unmanned aircraft vehicles. Despite of having some drawbacks, aircraft parachute systems has saved more than 250 lives within almost thirty years of its existence.

References

Austin, R. (2011). Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAVS Design, Development and Deployment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons

BRS Aviation. (n.d.). BRS Ballistic Parachutes: Information for Emergency Personnel. http://brsparachutes.com/files/brsparachutes/files/First%20Responders.pdf

BRS Aviation. (n.d.). BRS History. Retrieved from http://www.brsparachutes.com/brs_history.aspx

Campbell, J. (1988). Plane-Saving Parachute. Popular Science, 233(6), pp. 87-110.