. I watched this 3 years ago on science section of tomo news, this plane is possible to build, I think a Japanese company already took the challenge.


It'd be a life saver

I also saw the bed/safe house on same channel


It's like a bed but during severe earthquake, it drops down to your basement, covers you, there's food for a week and drinks. I forgot the name but I bet you get the idea

GloryIsaac:
Basically, it's clear that parachute for each passenger won't happen, the reasons are too much as you've rightly explained.

I saw an explanatory video about a new type of plane that would be designed to have some sort of demarcation between the passenger cabin and the cockpit. It will be able to detach from the cockpit and the wings in an emergency situation and engage in a free fall for a little time before two very large parachutes are automatically deployed to give It balance and drastically reduce it's impact on the ground or water. Also it will have large floaters deployed below it that can land on the ground and on water.
But, the challenge with this plane is if there'll be strong maintenance on the hooks that will hold the body of the plane to the cockpit and its wings, and an avoidance of a situation where the hooks fail to detach from the cockpit and wings.

modified

For the sake of multiple concerns about the lives of the pilots, it should be made clear that they are expected to evacuate the cockpit before detachment. It could be by ejection or most likely having to join the passenger cabin before hitting 'detach'.

So, to any pilot reading this, your life also matters, no one is leaving you behind.

Daeylar:
This is much better, I just hope the pilots would be able to make it in time to the passenger cabin

it is unethical for a Captain to abandon ship with passengers aboard. He is always the last man to disembark. This case is even better as it gives him the opportunity to calm and guide the passengers while setting off other protocols for emergency help or rescue operation. Sometimes tracking and rescue could take beyond 24hours depending on location and conditions

JOMAX:

it is unethical for a Captain to abandon ship with passengers aboard. He is always the last man to disembark. This case is even better as it gives him the opportunity to calm and guide the passengers while setting off other protocols for emergency help or rescue operation. Sometimes tracking and rescue could take beyond 24hours depending on location and conditions

Tracking and rescue shouldn't be a big deal if lives are saved. Afterall crashed planes are already being tracked. Moreso, the passenger capsule can have its own SOS trackable devices.

GloryIsaac:
Basically, it's clear that parachute for each passenger won't happen, the reasons are too much as you've rightly explained.

I saw an explanatory video about a new type of plane that would be designed to have some sort of demarcation between the passenger cabin and the cockpit. It will be able to detach from the cockpit and the wings in an emergency situation and engage in a free fall for a little time before two very large parachutes are automatically deployed to give It balance and drastically reduce it's impact on the ground or water. Also it will have large floaters deployed below it that can land on the ground and on water.
But, the challenge with this plane is if there'll be strong maintenance on the hooks that will hold the body of the plane to the cockpit and its wings, and an avoidance of a situation where the hooks fail to detach from the cockpit and wings.

modified

For the sake of multiple concerns about the lives of the pilots, it should be made clear that they are expected to evacuate the cockpit before detachment. It could be by ejection or most likely having to join the passenger cabin before hitting 'detach'.

So, to any pilot reading this, your life also matters, no one is leaving you behind.

To improve efficiency and reduce weight on hooks, divided (2 or 3 separate segments) passenger capsule each with its parachute systems ( hooks and all) or mini emergency float (Control descent) engine in each segment/separate capsule

Big guns in aviation or .........monitoring or by proxy can get this info and implement .

RevenGeMission:
. I watched this 3 years ago on science section of tomo news, this plane is possible to build, I think a Japanese company already took the challenge.


It'd be a life saver

I also saw the bed/safe house on same channel


It's like a bed but during severe earthquake, it drops down to your basement, covers you, there's food for a week and drinks. I forgot the name but I bet you get the idea

The plane will definitely be built as options are limited, and this solution can actually be made manual so as to avoid transmission failure.

As for the earthquake bed, there are too many uncertainties in it, so i don't support it.

Smily202:
Nice info from Explorer. The only solution to saving lives during crash is to install the plane with Whole Plane Parachutes that's the only way It May Save Lives It's work in progress and the practice has already been done in smaller planes that carried 5 passengers. So they wanna replicate it on bigger commercial planes that carry over 200 people on board.

You dont get it.
A burning plane with failed system will burn down your mumu parachute that you installed all around it.
Another fact is that the speed of free fall will never allow the parachute to have a stable fall.

That clip is very necessary to separate the wings and the pilot chambers.

My little contribution is, manufacturers should make the roof of commercial airplanes convertible and ejectable seats that can be deployed simultaneously. In this case, two or three rows of seats can share a single parachute, reducing the overall cost/weight and isolophobia.

papaejima1:



Also, the argument about height/altitude is nonsense. Aircrafts don't crash at 30,000 feet! They crash on the ground! Every aircraft must fall to a safe altitude for people to jump out before getting to the ground no matter how high it flies.

I do like your reasoning..... and really wherever someone ends up they can be located by GPS...that shouldn't be an issue. Now the part quoted... that's where the whole parachute thing would not be effective. Parachutes for individuals...or for the entire cabin section (which I like better)... need to be deployed at a certain height. Since planes usually go into distress during take off and landing...they will not be at the height for parachutes to be effective.
I was going to make the point that passengers bailing out at 30K to 38K feet will have breathing, pressure, hypothermia problems...but like you said... emergencies will not require a bailout at such heights. But then.... parachutes for the fat ones?...babies?...how will that work? More reasons why I'll prefer the cabin option...but.... all this be NL armchair brainstorming!

Very educative.
Thank you Op.

[1quote author=Explorers post=76733022]Skydives are pre-planned.


An important thing to remember about skydiving is that it occurs under perfectly normal conditions.

Since the jumps are pre-planned, the skydiver knows well in advance that they are going to jump out of a moving airplane.

In contrast, passengers onboard airplanes would never know in advance that they might have to take the leap in the next few minutes.


Skydives are extensively planned and prepared for in advance.


In essence, what you have on a commercial plane are people who have never used or seen a parachute in their lives, but have to strap on the gear effectively in only a minute or two and prepare to jump.

They also have to do all this while wearing their emergency oxygen masks (we haven’t even factored in the environment of confusion and commotion that would rock the cabin in such an emergency situation where 200 passengers needs to jump in less than 2minutes).


Let's us imagine a situation where the plane is nose diving. [/quote]

zz

codemaniacs:


the parachute will burn if there is an explosion anywhere in the plane

mars and space are not real..

kindly explain the last paragraph?

zz

codemaniacs:


If they were real it may also mean aliens, which means U.S and the likes would enlighten the whole world on securing their airspace against aliens, they wouldn't spending money or time on media attacks and re-colonizing some countries.

it would mean aliens can invade earth through any part of the earth, so every part of the earth would need to be aware and enlightened on such events..

maybe the elites are planning to run off to another planet and leave us here

zz

Originalsly:


I do like your reasoning..... and really wherever someone ends up they can be located by GPS...that shouldn't be an issue. Now the part quoted... that's where the whole parachute thing would not be effective. Parachutes for individuals...or for the entire cabin section (which I like better)... need to be deployed at a certain height. Since planes usually go into distress during take off and landing...they will not be at the height for parachutes to be effective.
I was going to make the point that passengers bailing out at 30K to 38K feet will have breathing, pressure, hypothermia problems...but like you said... emergencies will not require a bailout at such heights. But then.... parachutes for the fat ones?...babies?...how will that work? More reasons why I'll prefer the cabin option...but.... all this be NL armchair brainstorming!

Parachutes can carry any human weight bro, fat, slim, adult or baby. I am yet to see any human weighing more than 300kg. Better a broken limb than dead.
Remember that the device is automatic and does not need human input to activate and deploy, so if anyone can wear it and get off the plane, the system takes over and guarantees some chance of survival as against the other option of fields strewn with charred bodies and luggage.

Much as this is a concept, more thought can be put into it to refine it.

eljay99:


You said it all! As someone in the industry, i know It's easy to blame manufacturers, but there are limitations to these kinda things. Plus people need to remember one thing: aviation is a business, no one will pay lots of extra cash to carry safety equipment they might never use. Safety unfortunately isn't number 1 priority, it's profit. Hehehe. Money is still at the root. It'll be hard to implement change that doesn't bring direct profit.

The new B737 max aircraft that crashed twice in the last 5 months is a modified version of the original 737 that will be more efficient and cost effective for airlines to operate. But with every new machine, there're new issues that we learn only with time and experience. But the cost here is too great, lives have been lost.

We just need to up the safety standards. In 2017 there wasn't a single commercial plane crash. Zero deaths. And We can do it again. With high maintenance, the chance of a crash is so small if not zero. Still the safest means of transport.

Bros i come back to this quote cos i remember how good it felt to reason with someone who understands. Safety in aviation this year has improved, lets pray for better in 2020

Explorers:
Parachuting kits are bulky and expensive


A parachute is too bulky to fit under a typical economy class seat.

Plus, its heavy.

Naturally, it would take up sizable space on the plane, which is already quite costly.

Also, adding parachutes for every soul on a commercial airplane would easily add around 6,000 - 8,000 pounds to its overall weight, a situation that airlines desperately try to avoid.

To top it all off, parachuting gear (helmet, altimeter, goggles etc.) is quite expensive, which means that airfare would increase significantly if parachutes were made mandatory on all commercial flights.


All in all, putting parachutes on commercial airplanes isn’t viable, both practically and economically.

Even if they did start putting parachutes onboard, the chances that they would save every soul during a real emergency are virtually non-existent.

The Homo Homo Sapien is whey too intelligent to be held back by all these reasons listed here.

GloryIsaac:


The plane will definitely be built as options are limited, and this solution can actually be made manual so as to avoid transmission failure.

As for the earthquake bed, there are too many uncertainties in it, so i don't support it.

U failed to list the uncertainties and the earthquake bed.

The earthquake bed is not a futuristic technology, it already exists.