Parachutes for Passengers?

Riding through the snows near Fort Tejon in the Tehachapi Range, about 65 mi. northwest of Los Angeles one day last week, an Indian cowhand espied against the white wall of a canyon a black smudge. Hundreds of searchers afoot, scores of planes had been hunting for nearly a week for that black smudge. Guessing what it was, the Indian turned back because he "didn't want to see any dead people." Others whom he directed to the canyon found the smudge to be the bodies of the pilot and seven passengers in the burned wreckage of a Century-Pacific plane. En route from San Francisco to Los Angeles the ship had flown into a blizzard. . . .

The California crash, worst in nearly a year, helped to attract attention to a bill introduced into Congress last week by publicity-loving Representative Emanuel Celler of Brooklyn, requiring transport lines to provide parachutes for each & every passenger. Representative Celler's measure, he said, grew out of a bad scare he got while flying over Philadelphia. To back up his proposal, he drew liberally from a provocative article in the February Forum called "Death by Air Transport" by Lloyd S. Graham in which compulsory use of parachutes was demanded. Author Graham, onetime publicity writer for Irving Air Chute Co., made these claims in his article:

1) In view of the parachute's record of saving the lives of more than 700 military and commercial flyers since 1919, there is good reason to believe that the lives of transport passengers could likewise be saved.

2) Transport operators have conspired to shun the 'chute because of ignorance of its practicability, stinginess and fear that patronage would be frightened away.

3) The transport industry has press-agented the Press into a sentimental atti tude toward aviation. If its seamy side were known, the public would demand safety legislation (i.e. parachutes) just as it demanded and got safety laws for railroads and steamships.

Before the Graham article appeared the editors of Forum approached Transcontinental & Western Air Inc. (on whose line Knute Rockne and seven others died in a crash last April) with a proposal that Col. Charles Augustus Lindbergh, technical adviser of the company, write a reply for the next issue. The proposal was promptly rejected. But transport operators have not kept their objections to the passenger 'chute idea to themselves. Chief objections :

1) In most crashes passenger 'chutes would be useless because from low altitudes it is all over in a few seconds. (Critic Graham: With 'chuted passengers, the pilot would habitually seek high alti-tudes.)

2) A shipful of passengers could not be safely evacuated because there is only one exit; novices would not know how to use a 'chute, probably would not jump if they had the chance. (Critic Graham: Let more exits be installed. Let passengers be instructed in 'chuting, as steamship passengers are taught how to use life preservers. Who can say whether or not they would jump?)

3) The cost of 'chutes plus the reduction of payload caused by their presence would force the average airline out of business.

4) An airline properly operated, with radio and blind-flight facilities, will not put a plane into a position where 'chutes are called for.

5) If passenger 'chutes were genuinely needed, the cautious Department of Commerce would require them.

Underwriters of aviation insurance, characteristically practical on the subject of safety, are opposed to the 'chute for passengers at present. Some of them believe, however, that in the future, when passengers are drawn from a generation wholly experienced in air travel and when the danger of collision in midair increases with traffic, some such provision must be made. Although they would not say whether or not they agreed with his arguments, leading makers of parachutes disclaimed sympathy with Critic Graham's article. Reason: they were not trying to force their product upon air transport until the industry is ready for it.

Until shortly after the War such few 'chutes as were in use at all were of the "attached" type. The 'chute was packed tightly into a knapsack which the jumper wore on his back. When he went overside, a long stout rope tied to the plane tightened, jerking the 'chute out of the sack. About 13 years ago the U. S. Army parachute division, directed by Major Edward L. Hoffman, began developing a "free" 'chute which the jumper opened by his own action in the air. Threatening the experiment was the then-popular notion that a man lost his faculties, might even die, while tumbling unhindered down through space. On April 28, 1919 at Mc-Cook Field, Ohio, Leslie L. Irvin went up in a plane with the first "free" 'chute. He stepped out, fell for perhaps ten seconds while his colleagues watched breathlessly, then pulled his ripcord. Instantly the 'chute snapped out of its pack, billowed overhead, eased him down. With various improvements, such is the type of 'chute in almost universal use today. For his scientific development Major Hoffman was awarded the coveted Collier Trophy in 1926.

What a jumper really pulls to open his 'chute is a steel ring partially encased in a canvas harness just over his heart. The ring is attached to a light cable which jerks out two cotter pins freeing the flaps of the canvas 'chute-pack. Thus released, the tightly-packed silk 'chute leaps out by its own resilience. To speed the action by a split second a small ''pilot" 'chute, impelled by springs, pops out first dragging the main 'chute into operation. A good 'chute costs $350. Experts who pack 'chutes in their holders get $3.75 apiece.

A 'chute of this general type must be worn by every person, service man or civilian, who goes up in an Army or Navy plane. Principal reason: Service planes are usually required to complete their flights even in bad weather. Many observers believe that when passenger planes are equipped with 'chutes they will not be of the present design, which calls for a degree of initiative and coolheadedness on the part of the jumper, but will evolve into a huge affair which will lower the en- tire plane or a detachable cabin.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.