What's the item of interest here?

I don't follow funny car (?) drag racing, but this seems like a pedantic argument that a video thumbnail claiming "parachute failure" is misleading because the "parachutes" didn't fail, but the "parachute system" did fail.

And they author doesn't know why,

> we may never have an answer to [why the parachutes didn't deploy]

but they want you to click and monetize a 5 minute "talk radio" bit to learn more?

No thanks.

> > we may never have an answer to [why the parachutes didn't deploy] > but they want you to click and monetize a 5 minute "talk radio" bit to learn more? > No thanks.

We got the HANS device because NASCAR drivers kept dying despite their helmets technically not failing “but the helmet system” did. (extreme whiplash leads to basal skull fractures even in the absence of a direct hit to the helmet)

Resilience is all about identifying these technically correct nitpicky details. If we know the parachutes were fine but the system wasn’t, we can go fix the system.

People arguing about the borders of where a label does and does not apply is usually a waste. Maybe if you’re designing a thing precise language is important, but for lay folks there’s no point in longwinded rants arguing the difference between “the parachute failed” and “the parachute failed to deploy”. Such things degrade the discussion and distract from whatever is actually going on.

It's a big deal to the people making and using the parachutes.

Now imagine the parachutes of Starliner or Crew Dragon not deploying correctly and the investigation that would follow. s/funny car/space capsule/

interesting and very concise video, the parachutes did not deploy because the vehicle's engine explosion negatively impacted the lever that the driver uses to deploy the parachutes

Safety system redundancy case study.

From the transcript: the system did trigger and the system did send the signal and the air cylinder did activate but in the split second while all this was going on the area between the two was compromised so now the levers are so much closer than when the cylinder activated... it didn't pull far enough to get the parachute wires to come out of the pack.

So it seems that a structural failure or deformation of the vehicle rendered the release mechanism ineffective (had it collided with something at this point?) This seems to imply that the cable was not in a sheath, and I suppose there are arguments either way as to whether sheathed or unsheathed cables (or rigid rods) are the best way to go.

Sheathes are weight. Maybe it was deemed less important before this accident, and now we know better. This is exactly how industries advance.