The landing of the Space Shuttle is a true spectacle. Nearly everyone has watched how these big parachutes deploy and decelerate such a massive “flying brick”. So why can’t all planes be designed to carry similar parachutes, to be deployed only on the rare occasions where there’s not enough runway left, and the plane is about to crash.
Of course the sheer volume of today’s mastodons of the sky may pose physical and stress problems either on the hull of the airplanes or the strings of the parachutes. But new resistant and elastic materials can be tested for the parachutes strings and mechanical engineering inventiveness can probably solve hull problems.
As for the exact timing of the deployment of these huge parachutes, it can be arranged by sensors along the runway and a simple computer calculating the speed of the plane once it reaches a certain point near the end of the runway. At the critical moment, this same computer will issue an alert signal forcing the on-board plane computers to release the parachutes, thus averting disaster. Naturally some kind of security mechanism must be installed to prevent such a release if the plane is airborne.
It has been disappointing to learn that such a technologically advanced nation such as the US has not come up with more than simple barriers at the end of the runway designed to take off the wheels and force the plane to skid on its hull, creating more drag. (CNN report this morning)
This type of accident has happened once too often, and stop-gap measures are not enough. American ingenuity has created the method used by planes landing on aircraft carriers: the grappling hook catching an elastic line. Why not try something similar? Or how about setting up rows of elastic nets strung across the end of each runway? God knows there are enough old airplanes to test whatever theory they can think of!
Are economical concerns hampering safety and security? It would be understandable that, in today’s cut-throat aerospace market, every expense must be weighed. Perhaps a concerted effort between governments or aiport authorities and aircraft manufacturers can provide a solution and make air travel safer. Expendiency should not trump reliability. And please have the runway at Sao Paolo grooved!
Related Posts
- Innovative take-off system could lead to safer, cleaner air travel
- Just A Plane Parachute!
- EQUAL PAY. BETTER PERFORMANCE. EXPERIMENT REVEALS: STANDARDISED CONTRACTS MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE
- The Construction of Raised Homes Makes Perfect Sense for Living and the Environment
- Snake on a (Galactic) Plane!
The old schoolmaster used to say. He instilled in us the idea that solving problems is not an ego trip, it’s just solving problem.
If your classmate presented a solution that seems faulty to you, you should either present a better solution or point out the faults, and find remedies for them.
In the same spirit, and regarding the solution of undercutting the landing gears of aircraft at the end of runways, I would submit that half of the time the pilots were not aware that they were going to overshoot the runway, and thus would have not emptied their aircraft fuel. An aircraft skidding on its hull with fuel left is dangerously prone to fire.
So it would seem that trip-wire inflated airbags instead of sand bags would be more appropriate to stop the aircraft slowly, and airport authorities would better prepare big waterfilled tanks at the end of the runway, to be trigerred also automatically to extinguish eventual fires.
This question regarding the usefulness of whole aircraft parachutes is an excellent one. There are in fact, whole plane parachutes for smaller aircraft: http://www.brsparachutes.com/default.aspx These systems have been proposed for airline transport class aircraft, but so far none have been successfully implemented.
The use of parachutes as an emergency measure only works from a safe altitude. It can’t be used when already close to the ground. The use of drag chutes also only works when the speed is still relatively high, slowing the vehicle, but not stopping it. In overrun situations the speed of the aircraft may already be low. Thus, one needs a means to slow the airframe to stop. Undercutting the landing gear is thus a reasonable system. One could follow that with sacrificial and movable barriers that add mass and drag, like the sand barrels on the highway.
The use of tail hook and line arresters for commercial aircraft is not advisable due to the more delicate airframes compared to military aircraft. Further, the deceleration would throw passengers forward (relative to the airframe) rather violently, hardly the “friendly skies”.
More pressure from ICAO member states on airports such as Sao Paolo to increase airport safety are undoubtedly to be desired.
Landing aeroplanes on an air craft carrier have only a very limited runway.
The technology to stop them in time is very simple and reliable.
Why should this not be used on commercial air fields and air ports?
Just wondring.
sherab