[Beyond Borders]

Hope this isn't a dupe. Anyhow, doable or a pipe dream?

Really cool concept. I couldn't see it being foolproof but surely it could minimize a lot of risks. Critics questioning the cost and whether people would be willing to foot the bill with higher-priced tickets, even for the added safety.

More here: https://www.rt.com/news/329321-detachabl...invention/

[The Beast1]

The question is, how will such a system work? Will it be a sort of "eject" button like system that the pilots have to press?

How high does it need to be for the chutes to deploy and land properly?

If this system is dependent on pilot intervention I doubt it will do any good. Most flight accidents happen suddenly with very little time to act on anything.

The pilot might be thinking, "i'll be able to fix this, just hold out a little longer..." and boom everyone's dead.

I'm all for safety systems but not something that will work 10% of the time. Ounce of prevention better than a pound of cure.

[PeruLover12]

...

[thoughtgypsy]

(01-19-2016 10:14 AM)The Ligurian Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 06:33 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

If this system is dependent on pilot intervention I doubt it will do any good. Most flight accidents happen suddenly with very little time to act on anything.

The pilot might be thinking, "i'll be able to fix this, just hold out a little longer..." and boom everyone's dead.

I don't believe that to be correct, quite the contrary in fact.

Apart from terrorist attacks where there's a sudden explosion most accidents seem to be a case of the pilots and flight engineer wrestling with a problem for quite a while before hitting the ground/ocean. Go onto Youtube and you'll hear lots of black box recordings or ATC dialogue where the pilots are reporting technical failures and are trying their utmost to save the plane/passengers. Air France ( Rio-Paris ) is a classic example where the plane took about 10 minutes to fall out of the sky.

The above safety system might not be perfect and we may have to wait for more years of development before a fail proof system is designed, but if there was a choice between flying in a plane with an escape hatch that was successful even only 50% of the time or a plane without one then I know which I would prefer to board.

From what I've heard, of the major airline accidents, many of them were due to pilot error: Air France, Asiana, etc.

As far as the detachable cabin, I think it would be a hard sell. The complexity, parachutes, strengthening of the non-cabin airframe, etc would add weight considerable weight. Weight means more fuel, which is one of the major costs in the airline industry. Given their already high safety record, I don't think the added safety would outweigh the considerable cost increase.

[RichieP]

^Due to pilot error yes, but there's usually a precious few minutes between the unrecoverable error and the actual crash landing. Presumably that's when the detachable cabin... detaches.

I'm not sure this is viable for commercial airlines, cost-benefit wise. However this might be a cool upsell for smaller charter planes or private jets or whatnot with rich customers with fear of flying. Could see this being a diffferentiator to 1.5x the price of a private jet.

[CleanSlate]

Interesting concept, but not sure if feasible. Maybe they could do a proof of concept on a remotely controlled plane, or just eject the cabin with a pilot controlled plane (with no failure on a controlled flight).

But I have a hard time imagining how the parachutes can deploy properly without getting ripped right off the cabin given it's momentum when it had been going through the air at 500+ mph. I don't think people realize how fast planes go at cruise altitude as opposed to low altitude on takeoffs and landings, where speeds are only 1/4 to 1/3 of cruise speed.

[stefpdt]

Something like this will 100% eventually be added to airplanes, no doubt. I'll guesstimate that it's still at least 15-20+ years out, but it will come.

The fear of flying is really irrational, but it still amazes me that there's still not a single solution like this available just in case something insanely rare were to happen...

Just the reassurance of knowing that there is a way out in case the inevitable were to happen is comforting enough to help a lot of people with flight anxiety etc. The invention is something that would be super beneficial to the overall traveling experience.

[Khan]

(01-22-2016 02:12 AM)stefpdt Wrote:  

The fear of flying is really irrational, but it still amazes me that there's still not a single solution like this available just in case something insanely rare were to happen...

Just the reassurance of knowing that there is a way out in case the inevitable were to happen is comforting enough to help a lot of people with flight anxiety etc. The invention is something that would be super beneficial to the overall traveling experience.

Agree with everything except what you said about fear of flying being irrational. In fact, it's perfectly rational.

Human beings have evolved over a course of millions of years, and during all that time we've always walked on foot. We're not birds or something; fear of flying is just our genes simply telling us that sitting in a flying metal container 10km above ground is not natural.

[da_zeb]

(01-19-2016 11:49 AM)RichieP Wrote:  

^Due to pilot error yes, but there's usually a precious few minutes between the unrecoverable error and the actual crash landing. Presumably that's when the detachable cabin... detaches.

I'm not sure this is viable for commercial airlines, cost-benefit wise. However this might be a cool upsell for smaller charter planes or private jets or whatnot with rich customers with fear of flying. Could see this being a diffferentiator to 1.5x the price of a private jet.

Parachute systems already exist for light aircraft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_...ry_Systems

[thoughtgypsy]

(01-22-2016 12:32 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

Interesting concept, but not sure if feasible. Maybe they could do a proof of concept on a remotely controlled plane, or just eject the cabin with a pilot controlled plane (with no failure on a controlled flight).

But I have a hard time imagining how the parachutes can deploy properly without getting ripped right off the cabin given it's momentum when it had been going through the air at 500+ mph. I don't think people realize how fast planes go at cruise altitude as opposed to low altitude on takeoffs and landings, where speeds are only 1/4 to 1/3 of cruise speed.

The air is less dense at higher altitudes where cruising speed occurs, so there would be relatively less force on a deployed parachute up high. But a legitimate concern at lower altitudes.

For emergency situations due to engine failures, I think the plane would be around stall speed, which should be much slower also.

[thoughtgypsy]

(01-22-2016 11:27 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 12:32 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

Interesting concept, but not sure if feasible. Maybe they could do a proof of concept on a remotely controlled plane, or just eject the cabin with a pilot controlled plane (with no failure on a controlled flight).

But I have a hard time imagining how the parachutes can deploy properly without getting ripped right off the cabin given it's momentum when it had been going through the air at 500+ mph. I don't think people realize how fast planes go at cruise altitude as opposed to low altitude on takeoffs and landings, where speeds are only 1/4 to 1/3 of cruise speed.

The air is less dense at higher altitudes where cruising speed occurs, so there would be relatively less force on a deployed parachute up high. But a legitimate concern at lower altitudes.

For emergency situations due to engine failures, I think the plane would be around stall speed, which should be much slower also.

Airspeed will be lower at lower altitude, because of that air density which you refer to, so it would be a wash.