Passengers on airliners do not have parachutes...why?

a reply to: Catacomb

Can't help but wonder what it would be like for a couple of nervous nellys to open their chutes while still in the plane.
There would be more deaths because of this than from a plane crash.
Of course all it would take is one.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
How many successful commercial emergency water landings have there been? I only know of the Hudson River occurrence.

There's been a few, but conditions of the water matter more than an any "skill" on behalf of the pilot - that Hudson river pilot everyone fawned over simply got lucky.

Some successful ditchings in the list here

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Quite a few actually. I was just watching Why Planes Crash last night and one episode was about ditching.

There was a Pan Am flight from the Philippines, back in the days of the early long range aircraft (it was a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser out of Honolulu, operating as Flight 6) that had the #4 prop run away. They were between Honolulu and LA, but couldn't get to either. They found a Coast Guard cutter and orbited until daylight, and touched down next to them. All 31 survived. There is video of that one.

There was a DC-9 to St Maarten, that originally chose to divert because of weather, but was called and told that the weather was ok, so they refiled to St Maarten, wound up making three or four landing attempts, before ditching in bad weather and high seas, 23 of something like 64 were killed.

This one was borderline, but an Ethiopian 767 was hijacked and ditched off a resort. The plane flipped on touchdown with the water and broke apart. Most on board survived the crash, but they had inflated their life jackets before impact, and were trapped in the fuselage and drowned. I believe twenty three successfully got out.

Those were just the ones on that episode, there have been a few more besides the Hudson. Usually at least a few die, but they manage to get some off and rescued.

originally posted by: stumason
There's been a few, but conditions of the water matter more than an any "skill" on behalf of the pilot - that Hudson river pilot everyone fawned over simply got lucky.

Yeah, it looks like it would need to be on a lake or river for there to be a high chance of survivability and there were only a couple of large aircraft on there.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lake or river has a much better chance, but there have been a number in the ocean that have had survivors, and some were fairly good sized commercial aircraft. Not always in calm seas either.

I agree their should be some sort of defence available for passengers. Buckle up? To the tin can hurling towards the earth from 30,000 feet? No thanks. I haven't flown since was old enough to tell my parents to f@#k right off with that *snip*

If this were a new industry with today's safety standards, it would not get off the ground. People expect more than what they are getting from commercial airlines.

I heard pilots in the US get paid like 25k a year. Do you think they are going to spend a red cent more than they have to for your safety?

originally posted by: jhn7537

originally posted by: Jonjonj
350 people jumping out of the same aeroplane at the same time is a recipe for red rain?

but couldn't a pilot drop the plane to a lower height and slower speed to make it possible?

Well yeah sure....sometimes they actually land the plane.....

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I heard pilots in the US get paid like 25k a year. Do you think they are going to spend a red cent more than they have to for your safety?

The average salary is over $52,000 a year with tenured pilots making well into six figures.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Regional pilots and small airline pilots make that much, but they fly small planes, usually on several short routes a day, not the big planes that go coast to coast, or internationally.

But...but...but...really? I mean come on. The very idea of flying is dangerous, it really is, it may be as safe as possible, and I believe that all that can be done is being done...but you can't make a square into a circle. It is inherently dangerous because..well guess what? We weren't meant to fly. Asking to make it safer by adding parachutes is like asking for cars to be made safer by making them from titanium...would it reduce crush factor? Absolutely. Would it reduce deaths? hmmm. Is it practical, no way José.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
Because the loss of cabin pressure would be enough to kill you almost instantly.

That is not true, if you saw the case of the flight that had explosive decompression when the fuselage broke up at altitude people were conscious throughout the whole ordeal.

Considering flying already way way safer than say, walking, driving, biking etc. And the that fact it would take a very particular scenerio for a plane to have an accident where some how some people would increase their odds of survial with a parachute would be almost non existant and that those passangers would have to be trained and experianced sky divers I am pretty the sum total of people saved by parachutes over the last few decades would be zero. It would be a compelte waste of time and money.

a reply to: Mindsmog

During a decompression, you don't die or go unconscious instantly, but the more you move around the faster you lose consciousness. By the time you struggle into a parachute, especially if you aren't familiar with how to put it on, struggle to a door, and get ready to jump, you're going to be on the very edge of consciousness, if not out cold already. Most people aren't going to last longer than three or four minutes max. Even with specialized training the average person isn't going to last longer than 5-7 minutes before going out.

With all the panic that would be on the plane, most people wouldn't get out, or even get close to getting out. And that's if you were flying straight and level, and not diving down towards the ground, or losing control of the aircraft.

originally posted by: stuthealien
im taking my parachute on as hand luggage,and if that plane starts going down IM OPENING THE DOOR AND JUMPING if your silly enough to get on a plane with no parachute dont whinge at me,and yes i have been skydiving and just to let you know you have to jump several times to allow your brain to get used to jumping as it can be disorientated as chemicals are released by the brain when you jump a wrist altimeter would also be very handy.... but the point the op made about them not caring is absolutely right ,military jets have ejector seats but as a airline passenger not one ,to many seats you say well thats not true, they could have large ejector platforms where whole sections could be ejected then parachutes open and safely landed ,before you say not possible...have you not seen tanks parachuted into battle link.. the fact airlines dont care is still true or there would be passenger ejection platforms , the tech excists and has for years .

i'm sure the TSA will understand about your chute. lol!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Regional pilots and small airline pilots make that much, but they fly small planes, usually on several short routes a day, not the big planes that go coast to coast, or internationally.

That makes sense. I watched a show after a crash where the pilots were heard on the cockpit recorder complaining about drowning in bills just before the plane hit some difficulty. The claim was that once you are awarded your wings you are asked not to ware them while standing in line for food stamps cause it makes the industry look bad. I don't doubt what your saying though. It seems a bite cheap to pay a pilot to take 300 passengers around the world.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Mindsmog

During a decompression, you don't die or go unconscious instantly, but the more you move around the faster you lose consciousness. By the time you struggle into a parachute, especially if you aren't familiar with how to put it on, struggle to a door, and get ready to jump, you're going to be on the very edge of consciousness, if not out cold already. Most people aren't going to last longer than three or four minutes max. Even with specialized training the average person isn't going to last longer than 5-7 minutes before going out.

With all the panic that would be on the plane, most people wouldn't get out, or even get close to getting out. And that's if you were flying straight and level, and not diving down towards the ground, or losing control of the aircraft.

yes, it takes minutes to get out when the dam plane is on the ground!

imagine a panic at 30,000 ft!

hell, i'm not a big guy but even i have trouble moving around the plane with my back pack.

where the hell are people gonna put them on?

maybe make everyone wear one of them flying/gliding suits?

still need a chute, tho.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
But...but...but...really? I mean come on. The very idea of flying is dangerous, it really is, it may be as safe as possible, and I believe that all that can be done is being done...but you can't make a square into a circle. It is inherently dangerous because..well guess what? We weren't meant to fly. Asking to make it safer by adding parachutes is like asking for cars to be made safer by making them from titanium...would it reduce crush factor? Absolutely. Would it reduce deaths? hmmm. Is it practical, no way José.

Cars are made safer, every day, and that's my point. Just saying that flying is inherently dangerous, and therefore you take the risk into your own hands is not good enough. Flying is as common as driving a bus to school, so it should be as safe as that, as well. The fact that it isn't, rests solely on the airlines for not pushing safety technology, as some car manufacturers do (Subaru) every year. We weren't made to fly around town at 40-60mph, either.

What I am trying to say here, is that the common thought that everyone on board an airplane deserves to die in a disaster, because the airliners don't want to protect them in any way, is no longer going to be tolerated. Something needs to be done. A change in people's minds, that this is acceptable (wow, people being safe is revolutionary?!) is going to be needed first, I guess.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Mindsmog

During a decompression, you don't die or go unconscious instantly, but the more you move around the faster you lose consciousness. By the time you struggle into a parachute, especially if you aren't familiar with how to put it on, struggle to a door, and get ready to jump, you're going to be on the very edge of consciousness, if not out cold already. Most people aren't going to last longer than three or four minutes max. Even with specialized training the average person isn't going to last longer than 5-7 minutes before going out.

With all the panic that would be on the plane, most people wouldn't get out, or even get close to getting out. And that's if you were flying straight and level, and not diving down towards the ground, or losing control of the aircraft.

yes, it takes minutes to get out when the dam plane is on the ground!

imagine a panic at 30,000 ft!

hell, i'm not a big guy but even i have trouble moving around the plane with my back pack.

where the hell are people gonna put them on?

maybe make everyone wear one of them flying/gliding suits?

still need a chute, tho.

The panic is reduced to nearly nothing in the case of what one poster already said: an entire integrated emergency procedure that jettisons the top of the plane, and then ejects all passengers. No one has to panic, as the system detects catastrophic failures. Hell, all you would even need would be a triple fail-safe sensor for cabin pressure on each seat.

originally posted by: Catacomb
Flying is as common as driving a bus to school, so it should be as safe as that, as well.

Flying is already safer than taking the bus.

originally posted by: Catacomb
It's a really simple question, with a really simple answer. The airlines are cheap, and do not care about the lives of their passengers. Why do people fly, and not have parachutes? Make them available, and if people don't want to put them on, then so be it. But, I don't care if you have 50, or 300 people, you should have a parachute. You could even have it be an emergency, one shot parachute, and not a huge dual chute.

Oh, but wait, that takes up precious cargo space, which means less people, and less money...right?

Why is no one asking this question. In all of the years of these disasters, quite honestly, it is the fault of these airlines that they do not provide parachutes in case of a disaster. So what if only one life is saved, is it not worth anything to them?

You missed the most obvious answer:nobody is going to jump out of an airplane without their 3 carryon bags weighing 300 lbs!