55

There was another question that asked why commercial flights don't have parachutes. The almost ubiquitous response was that the parachutes would be useless because:

  • Most accidents with commercial airliners happen on take off and landing, and there is no time to parachute.
  • In order to get to a position where 100+ people can successfully jump out, you'd most likely need to descend some 20,000 ft and then maintain straight and level for a good 3 to 5 minutes once you got past 12,000 (so people have oxygen to breathe when they jump). And if you can descend and maintain level flight, you might as well land.

But what about in a light, single engine plane (think Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee)? Engine failures in small aircraft, for example, seem to be more common, so you have more accidents that start high above the ground. Thus, you usually have a few minutes before you're going to hit the ground and there's often only 1 or 2 passengers (rather than 100). Plus, you're usually already at an altitude where you don't need oxygen to bail out.

With that in mind, couldn't you put the plane into a shallow dive to keep it from stalling, trim it to keep it going straight and then bail out? It seems like a somewhat practical solution, yet I have never heard of anyone doing it.

Why do pilots often try to find a road to land on or a lake to ditch in when trouble strikes instead of just bringing a parachute and bailing out?

Community
  • 1
Jae Carr
  • 24,145
  • 38
  • 131
  • 228
  • 13
    It might be noteworthy that just about all glider and a lot of motor glider pilots wear chutes. There have been number of successful emegency exits, and in case of gliding some developments to facilitate exits, like the Roeger-Hook or (more exotic) DG´s NOAH-System. – yankeekilo Mar 20 '14 at 09:26
  • 8
    @yankeekilo I flew gliders for a few years and never saw anybody wearing a parachute unless they were doing aerobatics... – Lnafziger Mar 20 '14 at 11:59
  • 9
    @Lnafziger this is interesting - at least in several European countries (e.g. Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Spain) I have not yet seen anyone without parachute. For competitions those are mandatory (not sure if that is international, too). – yankeekilo Mar 20 '14 at 13:24
  • 3
    Gliders are a bit of a special case. Sport gliders often fly in close proximity, and so have a higher-than-average chance of mid-air collision. They are also easier to exit from. – DJClayworth Mar 20 '14 at 13:37
  • @yankeekilo I never got involved with competitions, but I vaguely remember them being required in that situation here in the US as well. – Lnafziger Mar 20 '14 at 14:07
  • When I went on an Intro to Gliders flight, we were required to wear parachutes. Also required when flying aerobatics. (I'm looking for precise citations) – abelenky Mar 20 '14 at 15:05
  • I'm not even sure how feasible in-flight egress would be in many GA aircraft, including the C172 and Cherokee. I was in a C152 Aerobat once that had pull rings for the doors, but that was designed for use with parachutes. Could you get the doors open on a C172 with flying airspeed? – Fred Larson Mar 20 '14 at 16:57
  • 13
    Actually, in European gliders (at least the ones I know, from 40 year old Soviet Block gliders to modern German ones) you can't even sit comfortably without a parachute: the seat is designed in a way that the parachute is your backrest. – vsz Mar 20 '14 at 18:01
  • Not that the chute would do you much good in most cases, as without proper training you're going to end up with serious injuries or worse trying to use one, and parachute training is not required (or wasn't when I got a ride in a gliders years ago), nor is proper chute selection for the size and weight class of the person wearing it. – jwenting Apr 12 '15 at 04:09
  • 1
    @jwenting: Here's a recent local instance in which a glider pilot used a parachute after his plane broke apart in midair: http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/man-bails-out-of-broken-glider-parachutes-to-a-hospita-1695949116 – jamesqf Apr 12 '15 at 19:29
  • @FredLarson I'm not very familiar with the C172, but it's pretty easy to open the door of a Cherokee in mid-flight. My instructor has done that a few times just to demonstrate how the plane feels with the door open. You can even make (right) turns using it as a control surface. :) – reirab May 24 '15 at 08:05
  • Wearing a parachute is uncomfortable and would be pointless for 99.9% of all flights. Not wearing a parachute would necessitate having to put it on before you exit; but the cockpits are cramped, and putting on a bulky parachute (while still flying a failing plane) would be impossible. – abelenky Jul 11 '17 at 20:14
  • @jamesqf not saying it's impossible, but it's not very bloody likely that an person without training to use a parachute will make it down in one piece. – jwenting Jul 12 '17 at 06:12
  • @jwenting: Don't know how likely it is, but per the link, it has happened. The few times I've flown high-performance sailplanes where a parachute is required, there was no instruction other than "this is the ripcord". – jamesqf Jul 13 '17 at 19:12
  • @jwenting: You seem to be thinking of ejection seats, which are as potentially-lethal as you describe. – Vikki Feb 16 '19 at 23:50
  • @Sean many inexperienced people end up with broken bones and worse when attempting a parachute jump. – jwenting Feb 18 '19 at 03:14
  • Gliders are at higher risk of mid-air collisions due to frequent intentional close proximity when thermaling, so a parachute is far more likely to be useful. – StephenS Apr 23 '20 at 16:06
  • @jwenting Broken bones are among the less serious outcomes of airplane crashes, so these are not the right criteria of comparison (I am assuming you are not using "and worse" to sneak in a reference to fatalities without making a disputable claim about the fatal accident rate.) The issue could be decided by the ratio of fatal/all attempts to bail out of gliders. I don't know where to find these figures, but I know of several successful bail-outs, and the only fatal ones I know of were at too low an altitude, in a situation where the crash would have been fatal anyway. – sdenham Aug 24 '21 at 16:21
  • In the "old days" pilots did exactly what the original question proposed. I recall reading that Charles Lindbergh made several parachute jumps while flying the mail in the mid 1920's. Engine failure at night over an overcast or losing control of the aircraft in cloud were some of the reasons, as I recall. – quiet flyer Nov 17 '21 at 13:04

9 Answers9

79

Mainly because in the situation that you describe, the airplane is perfectly capable of flying. You don't need an engine to fly as airplanes are designed to glide without it. Part of every pilot's training is how to land the airplane when this happens.

Many of the same issues also apply in the smaller airplanes. Unless the pilot and the passengers fly around with their parachutes on, it would be quite difficult to put them on in the confined space, in a high stress situation, and with the very limited time available. Even if they did, untrained people are going to be hurt (probably quite badly) during the landing even if everything else with the jump goes well. (See my answer on your linked question for some of the things that can go wrong during the jump.)

You are also creating a hazard with the aircraft not being piloted and crashing into a random place on the ground. All of this when the airplane could have just glided in for a landing in a field or on a road. Most of these types of emergencies end quite well, and even a lot of the accidents will have fewer injuries and deaths than if people were jumping out all of the time. As an added bonus, the airplane can even be used again!

On the other hand, a major structural failure that makes the aircraft incapable of flight could be a reason to jump. This is extremely rare however, and even if one has a parachute in this situation it may be impossible to exit the airplane safely because of high G forces and the possibility of hitting the airplane as you are both tumbling through the sky.

Some manufacturers are now building ballistic parachutes into the airplane which can bring the entire airplane down safely in these situations. This is much safer, reliable, and does have a positive impact on safety in these extremely bad situations. For just an engine failure though, I doubt that most pilots would even fire the ballistic parachute if there were suitable landing spots within gliding distance.

My view is that you would have a far greater safety impact by requiring everybody in a moving car to wear a helmet. Would it improve safety? Absolutely. Would people want to do it? A few would (and perhaps a few do), but the general population doesn't want to be inconvenienced by something that is only a remote possibility. The odds of a parachute helping you in a typical GA airplane is far more remote than the odds of the helmet helping you in a car.

nobody
  • 414
  • 6
  • 9
Lnafziger
  • 58,886
  • 39
  • 242
  • 423
  • 19
    Sincere thanks for pointing out that engines are strictly optional. This fact has not yet sufficiently entered the public domain :D – yankeekilo Mar 20 '14 at 09:16
  • Excellent answer, thank you :). – Jae Carr Mar 20 '14 at 15:23
  • There was an instance of the use of a plane parachute in the UK last year - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-22798139 for more info - as it occurred over suburbs, I suspect there would have been significant damage without it. – Gwyn Evans Mar 22 '14 at 13:23
  • 3
    to add to this in Finland a parachutist plane went down and only 3 people got out – ratchet freak Apr 21 '14 at 21:14
  • This answer seems to fly in the face of the fact that apparently, many aerobatic and glider pilots do wear parachutes in the cockpit. I would suggest expanding your answer to include this fact, and either why these exceptions are reasonable or why these pilots are misjudging risk – raptortech97 Feb 04 '15 at 21:42
  • 6
    @raptortech97 Well, two things make it very different for an aerobatic pilot (which the question was not about so I did not address it): 1) They do indeed fly around with the parachute on (which the typical GA pilot doesn't do), and 2) structural failure is more likely because of the high G-forces involved in aerobatic flight. – Lnafziger Feb 04 '15 at 22:19
  • Ah, sorry, I misread the question – raptortech97 Feb 04 '15 at 22:50
  • 2
    About halfway through you mention the "extremely rare" situation, in which there is severe structural damage. If it is impossible to exit the airplane safely... do you just... die? – galois Mar 16 '15 at 02:39
  • @jaska In some cases, yes. I'm referring to instances like mid air collisions that break off a major component of the aircraft needed for flight (wing, tail, etc.). Fortunately, as I mentioned, this is extremely rare. – Lnafziger Mar 17 '15 at 12:35
  • 14
    @raptortech97 Aerobatic pilots are at much higher risk than pilots in normal flight. I think Lnafziger's analogy of wearing helmets in cars is actually very apt. Going along with that analogy, racecar drivers do wear helmets (and have lots of other extra safety systems) for precisely the reason that aerobatic pilots wear chutes: they're much more likely to be involved in a bad accident. – reirab May 24 '15 at 08:14
  • 1
    "Untrained people are going to be hurt (probably quite badly)" This is a common sentiment and has even caused pilots to risk a crash-landing instead of bailing out, but where is the evidence for it? Typical emergency parachute descent rates are equivalent to free falling from a height of less than 4ft. – Zaz Mar 18 '23 at 01:07
31

I compete in aerobatics where parachutes are required by the rules.

My personal criteria for bailing out are

  • Structural failure (a wing breaks off -- unlikely, as my main spar is enormous)
  • Control failure (flutter, stuck elevator)
  • Inability to see or control the aircraft (oil on the windscreen, maybe a bird strike)

I might jump for an engine fire just because the main fuel tank is way too close to me.

If the engine fails I would land the plane.

As noted in Lnafziger's excellent answer, an engine is required for continued flight, but isn't truly necessary for landing :-)

I compare wearing a parachute to wearing a helmet in a car. In unusual / high performance situations, it's a very good idea.

It's unnecessary for the morning commute.

I don't wear one when flying a non-aerobatic airplane.

Community
  • 1
Dan Pichelman
  • 6,979
  • 2
  • 38
  • 43
  • 4
    Something that isn't clear to me from anything on this page: assuming you are wearing a parachute already, and the plane isn't pulling any significant gees, how easy would it be to open the door and jump out? – raptortech97 Feb 04 '15 at 21:39
  • 1
    @raptortech97: I think aerobatic planes have provision for in-flight egress. For example, I was in a C152 Aerobat once and noticed that it had a D-ring that would pull the door hinge pins. Regular C152s I've flown don't have that. – Fred Larson Mar 05 '15 at 17:56
  • 2
    @raptortech97 It truly "depends on the airplane". Some would be quite easy, others not so much, and others are even impossible to open in flight. – Lnafziger Mar 17 '15 at 12:38
  • 4
    "As my main spar is enormous". Congrats to either you or your plane... or both. :-) – End Anti-Semitic Hate Jan 22 '16 at 20:14
14

On your comment of:

Can you possibly think of an instance where having a chute would help in a GA plane?

Yes, I can, and here's a video:

Bet those guys were happy to be wearing chutes alright!

Danny Beckett
  • 16,627
  • 28
  • 98
  • 176
  • Yeah.... And that they were already outside of the airplane when it happened. Wow, not good. Any idea if the pilots were able to get out? – Lnafziger Mar 20 '14 at 12:10
  • 2
    As I recall everyone got out of that one. Very very lucky. All trained jumpers, all wearing chutes already. – Jae Carr Mar 20 '14 at 12:58
  • 3
    @Lnafziger - yes. One plane actually landed heavily damaged (pilot survived). The other was a total loss (obviously), but the pilot was also wearing a chute and survived by jumping – SSumner Mar 20 '14 at 13:31
  • @Lnafziger I believe everyone survived from both planes. You can see one of the planes falling in a fireball if you look closely. – Danny Beckett Mar 20 '14 at 21:51
  • 1
    You don't have to look too closely to see that! – Lnafziger Mar 20 '14 at 21:55
  • @Lnafziger Ah ok, I haven't watched it recently ;) – Danny Beckett Mar 20 '14 at 21:59
  • 2
    The video description says: All 9 skydiver landed safely, as well as the two pilots, one of which was taken to the hospital to treat minor cuts. – Martin Marconcini Mar 21 '14 at 14:21
6

It is common procedure to skydive from airplanes in distress, if the plane is already on it's way to altitude, carrying skydivers. There are parameters to consider though. When you are a trained skydiver, the safest option might be to get people out, because landing a plane with an engine failure is easier with a light load. This of course depends on altitude, and maybe surrounding options or landing a parachute (forests, mountains or relatively deep water would be bad).

I have done this once, when one of the engines of a twin otter went out at 9000 feet. This is also the reason why skydivers are ALWAYS required to wear their gear fully fastened while in the aircraft. In an emergency, even trained skydivers might not have time, space or stability enough to put on gear properly.

And by gear i mean the parachute, and it's straps. Not necessarily the helmet etc.

For untrained, and/or people not already wearing the harness, I would assume that it is safer to try to land with the aircraft, If in a situation where getting out is at all possible.

guest
  • 61
  • 1
  • Apparently there's also the theoretical possibility of a departing skydiver fatally damaging or entangling the aircraft. Jumpship pilots usually have parachutes themselves, which would be a bit odd for someone flying any other sort of passengers. – Chris Stratton Jul 07 '17 at 04:39
6

Sometimes pilots do wear parachutes.

It is a requirement for aerobatic flight that all occupants wear emergency parachutes. Aerobatic aircraft are also designed for quick egress with jettisonable canopies or enclosures and quick release restraints for the flight crew. The seats in the aircraft are also designed to accommodate an emergency parachute which doubles as a backrest or seat cushion.

The major reason for this here is the real possibility for an aircraft to depart from controlled flight or have the flight envelope exceeded, making a successful emergency or off field landing practically impossible.

In general for normal or utility category operations in a single engine airplane, nearly all emergencies will not result in a departure from controlled flight, if the aircraft is operated within the approved flight envelope specified by the manufacturer in the airplane's type certificate, airplane flight manual and cockpit placards as well as proper flight planning, weather briefing and preflight inspection. The aircraft can also be maneuvered to and landed off field, many times with a minimum of risk.

Naturally there are some exceptions to this. Engine failure at night and/or over rough or mountainous terrain, in IMC, or ditching in open seas can make a forced landing very hazardous. In these situations your chances of survival may be more favorable if you bailed out of the airplane at a sufficient altitude as opposed to attempting a forced landing.

As a Cirrus pilot myself with flight time in SR20 and SR22 aircraft, I am a big proponent of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System System (CAPS), particularly in the employment of the CAPS in the situations described above simply because the chances of survival are dramatically better than without, if the CAPS is employed correctly.

Moving into larger, multi engine aircraft the extra redundancy offered by two or more engines largely negates the shortcomings of singles in these situations and the benefits of emergency parachutes or airframe chutes.

Romeo_4808N
  • 73,674
  • 7
  • 150
  • 274
4

I am doing basic pilot training with the RAF. In our single-engine trainers, we wear and are taught to use parachutes. There is no ejection systems, we have to remove the canopy manually. I don't know why this isn't a standard procedure in all light aircraft, we are doing fairly similar stuff to civilian aviation.

It's nice to know that you have a last resort if the engine is on fire. They aren't a huge amount of use below 1500ft however.

Liam Baron
  • 449
  • 4
  • 10
  • 2
    Perhaps because most civilian pilots have a very small chance of being shot down? – jamesqf Mar 06 '15 at 19:12
  • It's nothing to do with getting shot down, planes at that risk have ejection seats. – Liam Baron Mar 07 '15 at 14:40
  • 5
    Because small GA aircraft like primary trainers don't have "canopies"? I can barely get out of my C152 when it's stationary on the ground. I couldn't imagine getting out while it's hurtling towards the ground. – Mark Micallef Mar 25 '15 at 04:10
  • Fair point... In which case that would make sense as our trainers do have canopies. Grob Tutor 115E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G_115 – Liam Baron Mar 25 '15 at 11:50
  • 11
    Perhaps the point of your parachute use and training is more about preparation for future need in higher performance, less forgiving aircraft in more hazardous conditions. I think civil aviation doctrine is that the aircraft should never need to be bailed out of... should never exceed its structural limitations, should never get into an unrecoverable flight condition e.g. flat spin, should never run into another aircraft, should never catch on fire, and landing the plane is safer than bailing out of it. – Anthony X Jul 04 '15 at 04:36
  • If your RAF trainer is anything like mine was, it's designed explicitly to need the pilot to be wearing a parachute, and it would be more trouble not to wear one. – DJClayworth Oct 01 '15 at 21:55
  • This may well be to do with the fact that military trainers and the way that they are used are inherently a bit more dangerous than normal civilian light aircraft combined with the fact that military infrastructural and discipline makes obligatory parachute wearing easier to enforce. It may also be a simple training discipline thing to give you an extra (but trivial) thing to check before flight. a bit like polishing your boots and making your bed in a prescribed way during basic training. – Chris Johns Jul 29 '16 at 21:01
3

The only time I can think of would be if you are flying over a large expanse of unpopulated mountain area.

You are responsible for the damage your plane creates when it impacts with the ground, so there is no time over populated land where there is any control over the aircraft that it is appropriate to bail out of the aircraft and leave the plane flying out of control until impact.

In the mountains where there is no traffic for miles bailing out might give you a better opportunity to be rescued. A parachute can be controlled and you can put yourself in a better position to survive until rescue. In the mountains it is much harder to land safely than an area where there are open fields or flat spaces.

Over open water bailing out of the plane might give you a chance to spot and/or be spotted by nearby sailing vessels. Though if you have some control over your aircraft then you would be better served using that control to ditch in a controlled fashion in visual range of a sailing craft than jumping from the craft.

Chad
  • 138
  • 5
  • If the aircraft is uncontrollable anyway staying in if you have a chance of chuting does not make sense damage-wise. Over sparsely populated areas it is quite difficult to hit something relevant at all, be they mountaineous or flat. – yankeekilo Mar 20 '14 at 14:54
  • If the aircraft is uncontrollable unless you have some sort of automatic ejection seat your chances of getting out in the first place are pretty low. This question really focuses "Why do pilots often try to find a road to land on or a lake to ditch in when trouble strikes instead of just bringing a parachute and bailing out?" This sort of infers at least some control. – Chad Mar 20 '14 at 16:01
  • Agreed - jumping out as long as a survivable landing is still a viable option would be quite debatable. – yankeekilo Mar 20 '14 at 16:06
  • @yankeekilo - The other issue is there are very few land spaces left on the planet that are truly unpopulated and not a sanctuary or reserve. If you bail out above 500 feet your plane could go for miles leaving you with no ability to direct where it impacts. If you bailout below 500 the landing is liable to be painful. – Chad Mar 20 '14 at 16:10
  • If 100 people parachute in a mountainous region, that will cause a very bad day for the rescue team, as everyone will land at different places. This is considering that most of the passengers will be too untrained and too unorganized to control where they should land. – Lie Ryan Mar 20 '14 at 19:58
  • @LieRyan - This question was scoped to small aircraft - there's often only 1 or 2 passengers (rather than 100). - not the commercial aircraft. I would agree though that in a commercial situation so long as the is some control the group is better off trying to survive a landing – Chad Mar 20 '14 at 20:02
  • 3
    @Chad Define 'truly unpopulated.' In the U.S., your chances of hitting anything other than a field or a forest are quite low unless you happen to be in or near a large city. These chances are even lower in, say, Russia, Canada, or Australia. Take a look at the sectional charts in the central or Western part of the U.S. The following are actual landmarks marked on Kansas sectionals: 'elevator' (referring grain elevators... the most common landmark on the Kansas sectionals,) 'stockyard', 'ranch', 'school', 'buildings' (yes, really,) 'church'. You'd have to try to hit something out there. – reirab Jul 01 '15 at 14:36
  • 1
    @Reirab - But unless you are in the mountains there is a real risk that it will impact somewhere that is populated because over most of the country you can draw a 5 mile circle and there is probably at least one if not more human built structure in that area. In addition if you let the plane go and it causes a forest or wild fire you are responsible for that as well since you abandoned. – Chad Jul 01 '15 at 15:04
  • Also, airplanes are expensive. Unless the aircraft is uncontrollable (in which case, as @Chad points out, you'd be very lucky to be able to leave the aircraft anyway), you have a very good chance of being able to land the plane in one piece without major damage. Bailing out of the aircraft guarantees (okay, almost guarantees) that the aircraft will crash, and have to be written off. – Vikki Apr 10 '18 at 15:50
3

I am a glider and motorglider pilot from Germany. At ours, it's mandatory to have a parachute in gliders (and there was actually one guy i knew who successfully bailed from his glider once due to airframe failure). The glider seats are built with a parachute-wearing pilot in mind. So you can't even sit comfortably in our gliders without a parachute on your back.

In motorized gliders (also in TMGs) it is reccomended to wear a parachute but it's not mandatory. Some pilots do it, others don't. In the unlikely event of hard-incidents, as we call them, (so: airframe failure, engine fire, permanently blocked sight, for example from bird strikes etc., blocked control surfaces) these pilots with parachutes can actually bail.

Caeleste
  • 202
  • 3
  • 8
2

  1. I believe most accidents occur during takeoff and landing when the machine and human pilots are most busy.

  2. Unless the aircraft experienced catastrophic failure I think most pilots would prefer to glide the plane down for a rough albeit survivable landing.

Some small aircraft come equipped with ballistic parachute...this is a great idea... :)

Alex.Barylski
  • 153
  • 5