Poor pilots. Seeing passengers floating to safety while they can do nothing but wait for their destinies...
This idea is ridiculous ejecting a capsule with passengers at 36000 ft at 400 kts is impossible and the forces involved could easily just shoot down this capsule slamming into the ground like a bullet.
Flying is already safer than any other type of transportation (walking, biking, cars, trains, busses, etc).
Also airlines wont adopt this, as it will cost more in maintenance.
That’s not a new idea. Boeing had akready some plans to have some kind of parachuseds to the fuselage.
This idea is ridiculous ejecting a capsule with passengers at 36000 ft at 400 kts is impossible and the forces involved could easily just shoot down this capsule slamming into the ground like a bullet.
Flying is already safer than any other type of transportation (walking, biking, cars, trains, busses, etc).
Excuse me, but the idea is actually practicable.
There aren't any forces that would
A ) "shoot down this capsule" - which acceleration forces would that be? a capsule without an engine attached will only deccelerate if it's speed was 400 kts before
B ) "like a bullet" - it's supposed to be slowed down by a/some parachutes (I assume just how the space capsules return to earth (and they're way faster than 400 kts)) - this isn't going to be a fun ride and neither a soft landing, but better than dying, isn't it?
The engineering to this idea is rather simple, I would even say compared to what can be constructed nowadays: "dumb". I mean, come on, a detachable cabin? That's basically the mechanism/idea used for dropping bombs out of a plane's hull... and that's a 1920/30s invention. The only problem coming up with this idea is the weight since a mechanism strong enough to hold 2 parts THAT BIG together must be like really strong... and that will also mean heavy, heavy means uneconomical, uneconomical means is it worth the lives that MIGHT be saved? Also a weight issue is the probability of debris scattering the capsule until it's opened like a tuna can... you would have to reinforce it or have it rather unsave (also for the landing!).
In fact the problem with this idea is only somewhat "logical" and less "physical". When does this capsule get seperated? Is the plane supposed to fly without the capsule? What's happening to the pilots if not? And why not just make the plane in itself 100% parachuteable?
Etc etc etc
This idea overall isn't going to be a thing I guess. You will more likely see whole planes being landed by parachutes than this ...
The scenarios you would need this capsule are indeed very uncommon and resources should be used on enhancing the current reliability of engines, structures, electric, computers which make the capsule idea obsolete anyways.
Excuse me, but the idea is actually practicable.
There aren't any forces that would
A ) "shoot down this capsule" - which acceleration forces would that be? a capsule without an engine attached will only deccelerate if it's speed was 400 kts before
B ) "like a bullet" - it's supposed to be slowed down by a/some parachutes (I assume just how the space capsules return to earth (and they're way faster than 400 kts)) - this isn't going to be a fun ride and neither a soft landing, but better than dying, isn't it?
The engineering to this idea is rather simple, I would even say compared to what can be constructed nowadays: "dumb". I mean, come on, a detachable cabin? That's basically the mechanism/idea used for dropping bombs out of a plane's hull... and that's a 1920/30s invention. The only problem coming up with this idea is the weight since a mechanism strong enough to hold 2 parts THAT BIG together must be like really strong... and that will also mean heavy, heavy means uneconomical, uneconomical means is it worth the lives that MIGHT be saved? Also a weight issue is the probability of debris scattering the capsule until it's opened like a tuna can... you would have to reinforce it or have it rather unsave (also for the landing!).
In fact the problem with this idea is only somewhat "logical" and less "physical". When does this capsule get seperated? Is the plane supposed to fly without the capsule? What's happening to the pilots if not? And why not just make the plane in itself 100% parachuteable?
Etc etc etc
This idea overall isn't going to be a thing I guess. You will more likely see whole planes being landed by parachutes than this ...
The scenarios you would need this capsule are indeed very uncommon and resources should be used on enhancing the current reliability of engines, structures, electric, computers which make the capsule idea obsolete anyways.
First of all this capsule has no stabilizers and no wings so it will not be stable in the air and any minor wind can change its pitch or make it roll over. If the weights are not perfectly balanced then the plane will tilt and that can turn into a fall and then the capsule will shoot down into the earth like a big bullet. Have you ever seen how airplanes stall? They stall with the tail first and if you let the stall continue for long enough then plane will be falling tail first. I have personally been inside an aircraft stall and it is not pleasant to see the nose go up and feel the entire plane falling and all the passengers either screaming vomiting or fainting. If the capsule changes pitch and speeds higher than 100 kts I do not believe that the parachute can be ejected as I believe it would be completely ripped off so if you pitch you are doomed.
I think there would be a large chance of surviving in a crash that surviving in this capsule.
hope they will also install ejection seat on cockpit of commercial airliners, would love to see the passengers' faces from outside of the cabin window.
I wonder in what kind of emergency you prefer to be ejected from the aircraft and left to the mercy of gravity force rather than having trained human controlling the crippled aircraft fighting not only to save the passengers' life but also their own life?
I can imagine that when there is a problem with the aircraft when flying over an ocean and the problem can't be fixed and there is no airport within reach it might be better to release the passenger compartment then attempting a landing on water. Almost all water landings I've seen in programs like aircrash investigation end up being a distaster, you probably have much better chances landing with parachutes and then waiting for coast guard or something. Above land it depends a lot on how the passenger compartment can land whether I would prefer pilots trying to save the plane or being left to gravity.
I think you’re all missing the point, the goal isn’t to make flying safer, but to make stupid people who think flying is dangerous have the illusion that they’re now safer. Perception goes a long way.
Well, if it's all about perception wouldn't it be negative to put this in the news (unless it's being installed in aircraft). It now seems like we need this technology to make flying safe while it already is. Only when you're on an aircraft that has this technology you might actually feel safer.
I can imagine that when there is a problem with the aircraft when flying over an ocean and the problem can't be fixed and there is no airport within reach it might be better to release the passenger compartment then attempting a landing on water. Almost all water landings I've seen in programs like airbrush investigation end up being a distaster, you probably have much better chances landing with parachutes and then waiting for coast guard or something. Above land it depends a lot on how the passenger compartment can land whether I would prefer pilots trying to save the plane or being left to gravity.
All water crashes on water are disasters in Air Crash Investigation (may be exempt from the Hudson River landing). If they did not talk about disasters why would they then show them on Air crash Investigation?
All water crashes on water are disasters in Air Crash Investigation (may be exempt from the Hudson River landing). If they did not talk about disasters why would they then show them on Air crash Investigation?
In the end I don't have experience flying a plane and haven't read and heard enough about crash landing a plane, but it seems to me that it's harder to land a plane on the water then it is on land (except maybe when it's a forest). That is, to me, not only because of what I see in these tv programs, but also because I can understand to a certain degree why it is that way (but I'm not completely certain).
Hi,
many accidents happen during landing. Dropping the passenger cabin won't help when you overrun the runway, or when you are too low for the chutes to open.
Both the passenger cabin and the plane would need to be structurally strong enough to withstand the physical forces. You don't want the wind to tear the cabin apart, nor the floor falling out of the cabin when the chutes open. Higher weight means more fuel. RyanAir would never buy these planes ;-)
The pilots would have to join the passengers first because the plane would nosedive as soon as the passenger cabin is dropped.
A detachable passenger cabin might be "practical" for airlines if attaching/detaching the cabin goes much faster than the current turnover time. Apart from that it would add a lot of costs.
Crash landing is as dangerous on land as it is on the water. Drive your car off the motorway at 120 km per hour into a meadow that is 1 or 2 meter lower... you will end up with a (survivable) total loss. Then compare the structural strength/safety of the passenger zone in a car with a plane, and know that passenger planes land much faster. Landing is okay if you have something that is as long and as flat as a runway.
Jan
I think you’re all missing the point, the goal isn’t to make flying safer, but to make stupid people who think flying is dangerous have the illusion that they’re now safer. Perception goes a long way.
I don't really get the point of copy pasting someone else his post in a topic that has been non-active for over 3 month...
I think you're all missing the point, the goal isn't to make flying safer, but to make stupid people who think flying is dangerous have the illusion that they're now safer. Perception goes a long way.
Damn, I should've copyrighted that. :P