3 ms·

Absolutely, you are right about the distance. But the thing is, I think risk is not measured in meters. The question more is what made sure that the airplane d

Absolutely, you are right about the distance. But the thing is, I think risk is not measured in meters. The question more is what made sure that the airplane didn't re-contact the skydivers. When an airplane after the drop flies on straight and steady you know that they wont hit the skydivers because the skydivers have no propulsion and relatively lot of drag. The skydivers will lose horizontal speed quickly and gain vertical speed downwards even quicker. This basically guarantees that the separation between the squishy humans and the airplane will be maintained. With the spinning airplane staying close to the divers who knows. Maybe the pilot is an ACE and they kept a mental model of the parachutist's position relative to theirs at all times. Maybe what appears to us as uncontrolled tumbling is anything but. Or maybe it was just up to "luck".

cbhl 5y ago
My mental model is that the biggest risk is the turning turboprop. The rest of the dynamics fall out from that: during the dive, the engine on the divers' side is already off, and once the stall happens, the pilot cuts off both engines (to avoid a spinning engine hitting anyone), dives to gain speed. Being inside the plane as a jumper during the recovery was probably the least pleasant -- normally one doesn't have a seatbelt in that scenario. I think at 0:54 one more person falls out the open jump door?
jaywalk 5y ago
Aside from the fact that the skydivers weren't really that close to the plane during the recovery, it was pretty much just luck. In a situation like that training takes over, and the only thing you're really looking out for is the ground to keep your bearings straight.
necovek 5y ago
While I agree a part of it was "luck", I think you've already highlighted some of the "variables" about why they weren't "very lucky" (as GP proclaimed) — difference of drag (in all dimensions), difference of speed and any active efforts by all sides. I like to turn question like this on its head: how would you make an airplane hit those skydivers on the way down? If the answer is: "very fricking hard", I think the "luck" plays a small role. Basically, if they were hit, they would have instead been "very unlucky". :)

cbhl 5y ago

My mental model is that the biggest risk is the turning turboprop. The rest of the dynamics fall out from that: during the dive, the engine on the divers' side is already off, and once the stall happens, the pilot cuts off both engines (to avoid a spinning engine hitting anyone), dives to gain speed. Being inside the plane as a jumper during the recovery was probably the least pleasant -- normally one doesn't have a seatbelt in that scenario. I think at 0:54 one more person falls out the open jump door?

jaywalk 5y ago

Aside from the fact that the skydivers weren't really that close to the plane during the recovery, it was pretty much just luck. In a situation like that training takes over, and the only thing you're really looking out for is the ground to keep your bearings straight.

necovek 5y ago

While I agree a part of it was "luck", I think you've already highlighted some of the "variables" about why they weren't "very lucky" (as GP proclaimed) — difference of drag (in all dimensions), difference of speed and any active efforts by all sides. I like to turn question like this on its head: how would you make an airplane hit those skydivers on the way down? If the answer is: "very fricking hard", I think the "luck" plays a small role. Basically, if they were hit, they would have instead been "very unlucky". :)