After recent flying experiences, I've been wondering why passenger planes don't have parachute systems? When I was younger, I used to consider handing out parachutes to each passenger on an airplane. They could then leap out of the planes and deploy these chutes in case of emergency. But then the flaw in this sort of thinking is quite obvious. There may not be enough time to file more than 287 persons to the door of the airplane and have them leap to "safety".

However, I don't get what's stopping airplane manufacturers from designing a giant chute to ferry the whole plane to a safe location? Wouldn't this really help to save lots of lives?

I like the second paragraph and idea, it's possible, after all the same technology is used to slow down cars after some car races.

But your initial question is not possible. Flying a parachute is something you need to get trained to do. The only way it can work is if there a law that doesn't allow people fly until they have a parachuter license.

propzncribz:
I like the second paragraph and idea, it's possible, after all the same technology is used to slow down cars after some car races.

Nice. I didn't even think about it along this line. But then, that shows the philosophy behind the idea. If cars can be slowed down, why not planes?

But your initial question is not possible. Flying a parachute is something you need to get trained to do. The only way it can work is if there a law that doesn't allow people fly until they have a parachuter license.

Yeah, true that.

i always wish its possible to have a parachute in my bag when flying incase

One of the major challanges to flight is weigjt.ht. have you seen the size comparisons of the chute system for a returning space capsule? Now imagine the size of the chute system needed for a 747 or A380. With such a huge chute surface area that will be required to bring down a commercial airliner, you can imagine how much the chutes will weigh. It becomes impractical.

Note that bringing an aircraft down from the skies is different from slowing a vehicle down. The vehicle is moving in only one direction. An aircraft will be moving foward and falling at the same time.

I am being simplistic here. There is a whole host of other issues involved. Minus the economics of it, the engineering is basically impossible.

LewsTherin:
One of the major challanges to flight is weigjt.ht. have you seen the size comparisons of the chute system for a returning space capsule? Now imagine the size of the chute system needed for a 747 or A380. With such a huge chute surface area that will be required to bring down a commercial airliner, you can imagine how much the chutes will weigh. It becomes impractical.

Note that bringing an aircraft down from the skies is different from slowing a vehicle down. The vehicle is moving in only one direction. An aircraft will be moving foward and falling at the same time.

I am being simplistic here. There is a whole host of other issues involved. Minus the economics of it, the engineering is basically impossible.

Good point.

I understand your argument about the weight, but I really don't agree that it is impossible. Instead I think it's about whether there is any scientific will to have it done.

If you had the chute system built into the fuselage of the plane or you had the plane automatically jettison some of its weight (fuel, cargo, engines maybe, etc) before deploying the chute, don't you think that may work? And however big the chute is going to be, I don't think the sky will be too big to take it. Anyways, just looking at ways this could exists. But I believe in its possibility.

Jettisoning parts to reduce weight is not a bad idea (though it seems to me someone is enjoying his Batman movies a little tooo much )

It's not so much a scientific problem as an engineering one. Weight of chutes aside, there is still the problem of Size of chute. Those things have a heck of a large surface area. Storing them on the body of the aircraft without making the plane look like Fat Albert in a winter jacket will be a trick. Then there is the structural strength of the rest of the fuselage where the chutes will be attached to. Then there is the problem of slowing down an 800km/hr vehicle sufficiently and slowly enough to not break the necks of all inside from whiplash (That's why Quicksilver held Magneto's head before speeding him out of that cell in Days of Future Past). There are more problems than I can see (not being an experienced parachutist)

Maybe modular construction of aircraft can help some of these problems. So instead of 1 parachute for the whole aircraft, the plane detaches into smaller modules each with its own chute system. That can reduce weight and surface area.

This is the crew capsule for an F111 Ardvark. Being a 2 person aircraft when the pilots need to eject, the entire capsule is ejected and the parachutes deploy for the capsule. Same thing for the Apache attack 'copter. I guess something like that can be worked out for commercial jets. But the expense! Oh the expense! !

That's an interesting idea, breaking the plane up into modules and deploying chutes for each module. I actually think that sounds achievebale, only maybe it'll require redesigning the typical passenger plane. Perhaps breaking up the giant craft into coaches like you have on a train, after of course some work on the aerodynamics. If you can break up a Boeing 737, for example, into a number of modules and then have those deploy their own independent chutes after detaching them from the parent, you could actually make this idea work.

If you think the slowing down at high speed will cause fatal injuries to some of the passengers, then consider what ramming into the ground at the same speed will cause the same occupants. Automation in passenger airplanes has experienced incredible advances recently and it shouldn't take much to have these planes conduct diagnostics which will trigger the chute recovery systems even at high speed. There might be resulting injuries or fatalities, but there is much more greater chance of saving both plane parts and human lives.

And as for expense, I do agree. Plane tickets will definitely become more expensive. If governments got involved however, cost could be greatly subsidized. After all, it's all in the effort to protect the lives of their citizens. If you ask me, I think sufficient engineering, political and scientific will could actually see this happening.

LewsTherin:
(though it seems to me someone is enjoying his Batman movies a little tooo much )

And just to note, I've got a strong feeling many of the world's future systems won't look so far away from what we see on present Batman and Avengers movies.

Dang! Just when I thought I had gotten a brain wave, turns out someone else not only has thought of it but has patented the idea too! So I guess engineers are actually looking into the idea of escape systems for commercial airliners.

Wow! Not surprised. Happens all the time.

LewsTherin:
Dang! Just when I thought I had gotten a brain wave, turns out someone else not only has thought of it but has patented the idea too! So I guess engineers are actually looking into the idea of escape systems for commercial airliners.

are u an aeronautical engineering student?

tdayof:
are u an aeronautical engineering student?

Nope. Though I studdied engineering in school and aeronautics as a hobby, I am not a practicing engineer. I actually run a business.

Isaac Asimov called himself an "arm-chair chemist". So I call myself an arm-chair engineer!!

Looking at the patent up there though, the design doesn't seem to hold up. I'd be more comfortable with a situation where the passenger cabin breaks up into different modules. It's probably just patented just for safe-keeping. Google patents is full of such.

My thots exactly.

LewsTherin:


Nope. Though I studdied engineering in school and aeronautics as a hobby, I am not a practicing engineer. I actually run a business.

Isaac Asimov called himself an "arm-chair chemist". So I call myself an arm-chair engineer!!

cool aeronautical engineering is great... Can't wait to resume school..

goofyone:
Looking at the patent up there though, the design doesn't seem to hold up. I'd be more comfortable with a situation where the passenger cabin breaks up into different modules. It's probably just patented just for safe-keeping. Google patents is full of such.

what if the planes can be installed with large safety esape pod?

tdayof:
what if the planes can be installed with large safety pod?

The Airforce One kind of safety pod? It's a matter of numbers. How many people are you going to put in a pod? How much space will the pod take? How much space is left for passengers, cargo and fuel?

You see, I feel human technology went the wrong way when we took airplanes over airships after the Hindenburg disaster. Now if we were still using airships - large 1,000 passenger airships, these are big enough to hold pods like life boats for all the passengers, pods that can deploy with their own parachute systems.

LewsTherin:

The Airforce One kind of safety pod? It's a matter of numbers. How many people are you going to put in a pod? How much space will the pod take? How much space is left for passengers, cargo and fuel?

You see, I feel human technology went the wrong way when we took airplanes over airships after the Hindenburg disaster. Now if we were still using airships - large 1,000 passenger airships, these are big enough to hold pods like life boats for all the passengers, pods that can deploy with their own parachute systems.

if we can't use that I think the parachute should be used then... Is it that its freaking expensive or what

The problem is getting the passangers off the plane to use a chute. You see how violent and fast fighter pilots are ejected off their planes. For large bomber aircrafts, there is a man-hole the crew can slide down from the cockpit to exit the aircraft. These are aircraft with just crews of 5 max.

In a commercial aircraft with crew and passengers in excess of 200, how do you get everyone off in a quick and orderly fashion especially as none of the passengers will be trained in using chutes?

LewsTherin:

You see, I feel human technology went the wrong way when we took airplanes over airships after the Hindenburg disaster. Now if we were still using airships - large 1,000 passenger airships, these are big enough to hold pods like life boats for all the passengers, pods that can deploy with their own parachute systems.

Interesting direction of thought. If we were still using airships and had greater control over burning Helium/Hydrogen, I bet there'd be much fewer crash disasters as the giant airship itself can glide to safety in case of an emergency.

goofyone:

Interesting direction of thought. If we were still using airships and had greater control over burning Helium/Hydrogen, I bet there'd be much fewer crash disasters as the giant airship itself can glide to safety in case of an emergency.

Exactly. In the 1930s when airships were in wide use, hydrogen was the gas used to keep them afloat. Flamable hydrogen. That was what made airships dangerous. But even at that, the number of disaster were relatively small. With the modern use of helium which is inert, that issue has been mitigated.

Personally I see airships as the future of cargo transportation. You can put a whole lot more cargo on an airship them than on any cargo airplane. Plus they don't require runways for landing. You can plop them down on any flat surface just big enough to hold their size

LewsTherin:

Personally I see airships as the future of cargo transportation. You can put a whole lot more cargo on an airship them than on any cargo airplane. Plus they don't require runways for landing. You can plop them down on any flat surface just big enough to hold their size

That's hard to argue, not with this current drive to go green. Maybe more possibly solar planes. You following the current trip of solar impulse?

And let me ask your idea on another aviation idea. What do you think of solar planes? You think they'd ever be able to power passenger jets before another huge transportation idea like Musk's Hyperloop comes around to revolutionize world transportation? What do you even think of this Hyperloop?

To paraphrase Christian talking to the Undertaker, Elon Musk has too much airtime. A crazy billionaire scientist is any nerd's wetdream but the guy talks too much.

Solar planes? Not practical. Airships generating some of their power thru solar cells, maybe. But solar technology will have to advance a whole lot further than it is now.

Hyperloop? Have you read any of Isaac Asimov's Robot or Foundation novels? He describes something he called ExpressWaya. That has a better chance of working than a hyperloop. Hyperloops will probably be useful in niche areas but can never be widespread.

My money is still on self-driving (then self-flying) cars.

LewsTherin:
The problem is getting the passangers off the plane to use a chute. You see how violent and fast fighter pilots are ejected off their planes. For large bomber aircrafts, there is a man-hole the crew can slide down from the cockpit to exit the aircraft. These are aircraft with just crews of 5 max.

In a commercial aircraft with crew and passengers in excess of 200, how do you get everyone off in a quick and orderly fashion especially as none of the passengers will be trained in using chutes?

it actually depends on the current feet and rate in which the passenger plane is descending... its possible for 100+ passengers to be brought to safety before the plane crashes......


and moreover the parachute is to reduce the casualty rate. its better if 50passangers are able to chute down safely than having all dead.

tdayof:
it actually depends on the current feet and rate in which the passenger plane is descending... its possible for 100+ passengers to be brought to safety before the plane crashes......


and moreover the parachute is to reduce the casualty rate. its better if 50passangers are able to chute down safely than having all dead.

Which set of 50 would you rather be in? And who determmines who is in which set? A safety system that doesn't have a good chance of saving EVERYBODY is no safety system. At anyrate, aircraft are designed to be as safe as possible. The fact that every crash is well reported shows how few mishaps there actually are. You have a much greater chance of dying in a lightning storm than in an air disaster and if you live in Lagos, you know it's raining a lot right now

tdayof:
what if the planes can be installed with large safety esape pod?

I don't think this idea is possible. Av u ever think of this.
1. At what altitude will it b deploy.
2. In a B737 classic aircraft which av a capacity of 140-150 passengers do u know there is a presurisation system that regulate d airtificial air u breath in when d aircraft fly above minimum of 8000ft. Now if this chute shut is activated @ wah altitude will it b activate. Wount passenger suffer from hypoxia if its activated above 10000ft above sea level.

back to d OP question.
Commercial airplane do not come wif parachute and that is why u av cabin crew onboard incharge of ur safety and security then comfort.
There two type of emergency, we av d planned and unplanned.
In a planened d pilot in command has minimum of 5min to land d aircraft which give d cabin crew to prepare d cabin for an emergency evaquation wen d aircraft comes to a complete stop.
Buh in an unplanned emergency this is d type of an emergency that happen mostly after take off or b4 landing whe only thing u hear is d captain call out which is Brace Brace.
If every passengers has a parachute and there is an emergency and it is activated hw will d rescue team locate every passengers.

bolajiboi:


I don't think this idea is possible. Av u ever think of this.
1. At what altitude will it b deploy.
2. In a B737 classic aircraft which av a capacity of 140-150 passengers do u know there is a presurisation system that regulate d airtificial air u breath in when d aircraft fly above minimum of 8000ft. Now if this chute shut is activated @ wah altitude will it b activate. Wount passenger suffer from hypoxia if its activated above 10000ft above sea level.

back to d OP question.
Commercial airplane do not come wif parachute and that is why u av cabin crew onboard incharge of ur safety and security then comfort.
There two type of emergency, we av d planned and unplanned.
In a planened d pilot in command has minimum of 5min to land d aircraft which give d cabin crew to prepare d cabin for an emergency evaquation wen d aircraft comes to a complete stop.
Buh in an unplanned emergency this is d type of an emergency that happen mostly after take off or b4 landing whe only thing u hear is d captain call out which is Brace Brace.
If every passengers has a parachute and there is an emergency and it is activated hw will d rescue team locate every passengers.

its possible... What you need to do is to upgrade the plane system in order to be able to get the technology you are looking for.

LewsTherin:
One of the major challanges to flight is weigjt.ht. have you seen the size comparisons of the chute system for a returning space capsule? Now imagine the size of the chute system needed for a 747 or A380. With such a huge chute surface area that will be required to bring down a commercial airliner, you can imagine how much the chutes will weigh. It becomes impractical.

Note that bringing an aircraft down from the skies is different from slowing a vehicle down. The vehicle is moving in only one direction. An aircraft will be moving foward and falling at the same time.

I am being simplistic here. There is a whole host of other issues involved. Minus the economics of it, the engineering is basically impossible.

I agree with this. Another issue is safely deploying a parachute of that size during an emergency. The fuselage orientation will play a role in the deployment. Another issue is height. At what height will it be useful to deploy the chute? I doubt the Dana crash would have benefited positively from a chute? How bout the recent crash in France? Pilot drove the thing into the ground. How would the chute have deployed?

I am sure there are many issues stopping this from being practicable. And according to a report I read most aircraft crash fatalities are not due to impact but rather to explosion, fire and smoke inhalation.

goofyone:
After recent flying experiences, I've been wondering why passenger planes don't have parachute systems? When I was younger, I used to consider handing out parachutes to each passenger on an airplane. They could then leap out of the planes and deploy these chutes in case of emergency. But then the flaw in this sort of thinking is quite obvious. There may not be enough time to file more than 287 persons to the door of the airplane and have them leap to "safety".

However, I don't get what's stopping airplane manufacturers from designing a giant chute to ferry the whole plane to a safe location? Wouldn't this really help to save lots of lives?

I just wish seriously

LewsTherin:

The Airforce One kind of safety pod? It's a matter of numbers. How many people are you going to put in a pod? How much space will the pod take? How much space is left for passengers, cargo and fuel?

You see, I feel human technology went the wrong way when we took airplanes over airships after the Hindenburg disaster. Now if we were still using airships - large 1,000 passenger airships, these are big enough to hold pods like life boats for all the passengers, pods that can deploy with their own parachute systems.

Speed and ease of use must have played a role. Airships are much slower than aircraft and less manoeuvrable. Airships don't land so they have to be tethered to allow passengers embark and debark. I also think we should have gone with Airships, they were far more glamorous and comfortable.

LewsTherin:
To paraphrase Christian talking to the Undertaker, Elon Musk has too much airtime. A crazy billionaire scientist is any nerd's wetdream but the guy talks too much.

Solar planes? Not practical. Airships generating some of their power thru solar cells, maybe. But solar technology will have to advance a whole lot further than it is now.

Hyperloop? Have you read any of Isaac Asimov's Robot or Foundation novels? He describes something he called ExpressWaya. That has a better chance of working than a hyperloop. Hyperloops will probably be useful in niche areas but can never be widespread.

My money is still on self-driving (then self-flying) cars.

Self-driving cars are already around. In fact, some daring manufacturers may start popping these into the consumer market in no less than a few years.

I meant some bigger mass transportation idea. Weird as it may sound, some guys are actually taking this Hyperloop seriously. And last i read, they sourcing for funding already. I also think it could be quite an intangible dream, however nothing is impossible.

bolajiboi:


I don't think this idea is possible. Av u ever think of this.
1. At what altitude will it b deploy.
2. In a B737 classic aircraft which av a capacity of 140-150 passengers do u know there is a presurisation system that regulate d airtificial air u breath in when d aircraft fly above minimum of 8000ft. Now if this chute shut is activated @ wah altitude will it b activate. Wount passenger suffer from hypoxia if its activated above 10000ft above sea level.

I actually don't think the altitude will be a problem for this kind of chute system. Though a planned emergency will be easier to control, an unplanned emergency can't go any awry so long as the plane doesn't explode in mid-air. All you need are altitude sensors that will automatically deploy the chutes once they sense that the plane has descended to the safe altitude where pressurization is no longer required.