It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
My opinion is not very and whats suggested by OP would kill more than it would save in case of an emergency.


Exactly. I could envision everyone in the forward part of the aircraft bouncing off the wings or enjoying a trip through the turbines.




posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Catacomb
Why do people fly, and not have parachutes?


Math.


So, we can do the following:

Engineer skyscrapers.
Split the atom.
Harness the sun's energy.
Detail the human genome.
Research and cure diseases.
Explore space, and other planets.

But, we don't have the intelligence to engineer solutions that would allow civilian airliners to have the capability to have a safety system in place that would take someone out of a catastrophic disaster, and bring them to the ground.

Gotcha.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Catacomb
But, we don't have the intelligence to engineer solutions that would allow civilian airliners to have the capability to have a safety system in place that would take someone out of a catastrophic disaster, and bring them to the ground.
Gotcha.


Go through the list of air disasters and detail which safety systems would have saved lives in each specific case.

Hell, start with the most recent, MH17, and tell us how a parachute or ejection system would have saved lives as the aircraft experienced explosive decompression at altitude (read: it was blown apart).



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
They better should build in countermeasures for missile strikes...



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Catacomb
But, we don't have the intelligence to engineer solutions that would allow civilian airliners to have the capability to have a safety system in place that would take someone out of a catastrophic disaster, and bring them to the ground.
Gotcha.


Go through the list of air disasters and detail which safety systems would have saved lives in each specific case.

Hell, start with the most recent, MH17, and tell us how a parachute or ejection system would have saved lives as the aircraft experienced explosive decompression at altitude (read: it was blown apart).


I believe I was quite adamant in my initial request that research may need to be done to ensure that new technology was invented that could save lives. I fully believe it would take quite a bit of money, but it is sad to see so many people do what humans do...and say it can't be done.

Anything can be done, it just takes research, and time. That was the main point of my post, as no one cares enough to do just that. And, most people don't really take those who have died into their heart, and work for a solution in their honor.

It's just easier to say that it can't be done, kinda like saying we can't go to the moon. We can't cure this disease. It's too hard, and flying...welp...you take your life into your own hands. No technology could ever save you.

Kinda sad to see....
edit on 28-7-2014 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
They better should build in countermeasures for missile strikes...


Also very expensive and considering the few aircraft shot down by missiles it would not be cost effective.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Catacomb
I believe I was quite adamant in my initial request that research may need to be done to ensure that new technology was invented that could save lives.


So this is you basically waving a magic wand and saying, "I think there is a problem, now someone needs to go and fix it'.

Everything you have proposed would make commercial air flight prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthy.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Catacomb

originally posted by: Fylgje
I actually came up with a solution to this in 1989; All airplanes need to be designed in a way that each seat is a bubble pod/parachute. It would look like a clear, plastic ball. If the plane was going down then the top would blow off the plane and all pods would escape. If they landed in water, they would float and be supplied with oxygen and other emergency supplies.

It could be done no matter what altitude but do you think that elites give two #s about people?


Something like that is exactly what I am talking about. Why is technology stagnant? Oh yeah, because every penny counts in the pockets of people who DO NOT CARE.


Passengers are just as much to blame they want CHEAP flights!!!!!



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Catacomb

Something like this?






But, we don't have the intelligence to engineer solutions that would allow civilian airliners to have the capability to have a safety system in place that would take someone out of a catastrophic disaster, and bring them to the ground.


We do have the intelligence, but the beancounter factor will stop any attempt on smart solutions.
If it doesn't make money the airlines aint gonna buy it.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

The Aces II ejection seat ranges between 12 and 20 Gs, depending on conditions at the time of ejection. Spinal injury results if it exceeds 25 Gs, or 300 Gs per second acceleration. And that's before you add in the speed of the aircraft, which 500 mph is about as fast as they recommend ejecting. At that speed the wind blast as you come clear of the aircraft can cause injury



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Catacomb

Billions of passengers a year, a couple of hundred deaths a year. I'm sorry, but that's not a reason to spend billions of dollars in R&D for a system that MIGHT be used. The average aircraft can last 20+ years, which means not only do you spend billions on the R&D and installation, drive the cost of air travel up to the point only a few people can afford to fly, train new specialists in how to maintain and fix the system, risk the system activating on accident, which could kill or injure passengers, etc.....

It's simply not cost effective.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Catacomb

things are done though..

if an aircraft loses an engine, it can still safely land. all passenger airliners are designed to be able to fly on one engine, not sure about 3/4 engine aircrafts though, they even have the ability to glide when they lose all power from all engines.

they can take alot of punishment..

however, when you get to the point of losing a wing, having any safety measure is pointless.
the amount of g forces you would experience would keep you locked in your seat unable to lift your arms, if you are lucky.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Catacomb
But, we don't have the intelligence to engineer solutions that would allow civilian airliners to have the capability to have a safety system in place that would take someone out of a catastrophic disaster, and bring them to the ground.
Gotcha.


Go through the list of air disasters and detail which safety systems would have saved lives in each specific case.

Hell, start with the most recent, MH17, and tell us how a parachute or ejection system would have saved lives as the aircraft experienced explosive decompression at altitude (read: it was blown apart).


A plane getting blown away by a professional grade rocket "doesn't count". That would require ejection seats and some sort of warning radar before impact which would be ridiculous.

When ppl say emergency they mean at least some time to act before crashing. What happened to those gas masks that fell down in front of passengers to counter the "cabin pressure" ppl, they don't have them anymore.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: igor_ats
When ppl say emergency they mean at least some time to act before crashing.


Go through the linked list above and show me where a parachute would have been beneficial to have.

If you can get the aircraft down to an altitude where you can open the cabin doors and have people orderly bail out then you most likely can safely land somewhere.


What happened to those gas masks that fell down in front of passengers to counter the "cabin pressure" ppl, they don't have them anymore.


I fly almost every week and they are on all the flights I have been on (United).



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I'm trying to imagine how this would work? Boeing says the maximum take off weight for a 747-8 is 975,000lbs that I found in an article about taking off above that to set a record once.

What kind of parachutes and how many of them would be required to bring nearly 1 million pounds down softly enough to prevent injury or structural damage for fuel leaks? It's also a weird shape with nothing like even weight balance in a crisis while passengers are in a tizzy. So, with each multi-chute option, figure what will compensate and shift weight to keep it from upending in the air and coming down very different than intended?

They could pack parachutes for every person on board. Bombers have had that in past times and still do have methods. Even the space shuttle had something as a last option if all was lost.

It'll only take a couple hours of instruction and training to make sure sending people out on parachute isn't simply sending them to a different form of death. That only includes those physically fit. What about children, the obese and elderly? Are they to simply ride the plane down while others are accommodated for survival?

Just to add another wrinkle. Which door would be used? Since the days of D.B. Cooper, airliners have not been made friendly to such a thing. Going out the front will work until one unlucky passenger hits the slip stream into the wing mounted engine with it's gaping intake. That will probably end the willingness of everyone else. The back door would work, but for several hundred people within the time left from a plane in the process of crashing?



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MrCynic
The pod, the cylinder that all passengers are sitting in, would detach from the plane and parachutes would guide it slowly to earth. No need to attach to the whole plane.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje
The pod, the cylinder that all passengers are sitting in, would detach from the plane...


How would it detach? What safe method is there to have 200' of aircraft fuselage separate from the remainder of the airframe?



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Fylgje

So you would deliberately break up an aircraft already in some unforeseeable state of emergency so severe that its already in the process of crashing? Once that is started for break up, it had better work because any miscalculation would insure the death of everyone inside whether the original crisis would have or not.

The mighty saucer section of the USS Enterprise detaching in the films like they have a few times is incredible to see. It's also CGI in a simulated space environment where gravity isn't already causing things to fall with moments or seconds of total destruction.

Someday with technology far beyond what we have now, this would be great to see pursued. Right now, the attempt would simply add another reason to avoid planes like the flying coffins they can become.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Fylgje

What about accidents where the fuselage is compromised? Now your pod is compromised.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Catacomb

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Catacomb
Why do people fly, and not have parachutes?


Math.


So, we can do the following:

Engineer skyscrapers.
Split the atom.
Harness the sun's energy.
Detail the human genome.
Research and cure diseases.
Explore space, and other planets.

But, we don't have the intelligence to engineer solutions that would allow civilian airliners to have the capability to have a safety system in place that would take someone out of a catastrophic disaster, and bring them to the ground.

Gotcha.


How many planes crash opposed to how many planes don't?

Please show your work when doing that calculation.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join