The Most Stupid Ballistic Parachute Test I Have Ever Seen !

[Guest Michael Coates]

Silly test and a waste of time and money, the aircraft needs to be moving forward when the chute is actually deployed, perhaps on the back of a truck at the maximum speed you can do. That way it will check that the parachute mount locations can actually handle the added stresses which would be expected at speed. Doing a test like this is a waste of time and does not require the aircraft fuselage at all.

 

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what was going to happen...... enjoy the stupidity !

 

 

 

[dazza 38]

Good Stuff MC. They may have well have just fired the Balistic Shute tied to a arm chair. lol All they have accomplished is A-Pull the handle...B-Yes it works, the chute came out.lol

 

 

[Spin]

Ah the spirit of Darwin is alive and well! That one will no doubt get trotted out as an example of "bad things that happen to ballistic chutes" next time the debate is reignited.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The most silly one i saw was at Byron Bay in the 80's when the US Quicksilver guys were here. They did a real live test. Flying overhead the pilot actually leant out and cut the main flying wire, folded the wing then deployed the recovery chute. Now that's confidence in the product.

 

 

[Guest Michael Coates]

Wow... now they are sending me nasty emails about this post.

 

 

[cficare]

wish i could see it...no link show to me!!

 

 

[Guest DWB]

try this Phil

 

 

 

[cficare]

wow!!....im impressed!!.......

 

i hope that wasn't intended as a selling demo.....................

 

thanks Dex

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

it looks like it was a test bed fuselage to prove the mounting and clean deployment of the setup. The mistake was it should have been conducted in still wind or should have had a quick release setup to cut away the canopy. just not thought through properly. But i do think it was a sucesssfull test as it cleared the enclosure and deployed properly without getting hung up anywhere on the airframe.

 

 

[Guest Michael Coates]

But its so much different in flight.... i will find you a failure video from Sting

 

 

[Guest Michael Coates]

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

As an long time skydiver i can say from both my own and others experiences that there are no guarantees that you can cover all contingencies when it comes to a second chance.

 

Take the automatic activation devices (AADs) that are fitted to reserves these days and are mandatory at some drop zones, some types are starting to prove that they can take lives instead of saving them. You weigh up the pros and cons and then make your decision whether on not to fit one or if you have one to turn it on or not.

 

ie yous pays your money and yous take your chances. that's life bro.

 

 

[Guest avi8tr]

As some of us know that is also a major problem when they are used in aircraft in actual proper use scenarios too. The chits needs an easy collapse mechanism such as a single string but that runs the risk of accidental deflation, catch 22.

 

The Cessna Skycatcher was a good example of this happening for real as much of the damage was caused as it was dragged across the landing area after a pretty much successful landing under chute.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Incident in the US recently with a structual failure followed by a successful deployment but unfortunatly an on board fire and both occupants ended up jumping to their deaths.

 

 

[bas]

Yeah, unless all they wanted to test if it would punch through the hole, clear other surfaces and not break the airframe when it went off, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

Their "worst case stall scenario" explanation on the YouTube comments doesn't cut it; in the worst case stall scenario you would be going down at a few thousand feet per minute at least and still have some forward speed too.