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: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Not all crashes decompress before the accident. And most take place at low altitude, and are incredibly fast. You wouldn't even have time to figure out that the plane was in trouble, let alone get a door open, jump out, and get clear of the explosion.

One can (just for fun) anticipate, contemplate all possibilities of an unlikely/unfortunate death; and reason ones way to an alternative, LIFE VS DEATH. I suppose this is a Bear Grylls scenario.




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Surprisingly, the odds of another accident (not necessarily involving you, just another accident) are higher within a few days after one occurs.

Damn, you are killing me. I might as well fly on Malaysian instead of United.


I've never flown Malaysia Airlines but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that their customer service is probably better.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I see... So putting on a parachute during a zero G free fall, combined with extreme G wing-shearing rolls and pitches..fire, climbing over chairs and panicking people to reach a pressurized exit door, somehow open it while being violently thrown about like a rag doll, jump and hopefully not get killed by the plane itself, or sucked into the engines....and pull the cord if you're still conscious or not in mortal shock...hope nobody, including plane debris , falls on top of your canopy and collapses it..and guide yourself away from the intense, jet fuel fed firestorm and metal shards that appears beneath your feet after the chute opens?

Only in the movies....

Imaging 200 people trying to do that. No thanks...
edit on 30-7-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fylgje

Military planes also don't have things like overhead compartments, and wiring, and piping above the pilot.

Redesign, my friend. Redesign.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Fylgje

Ok, so now we're not going to be allowed to have carryon bags, and they're going to have to alter the wiring and piping of the plane, which means we don't get windows either, because now they have to go through the walls, no AC, because the ducts for that is up in the ceiling, and there won't be enough room in the sidewalls for that, so now we get too be even more horribly uncomfortable while flying.....



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fylgje

Military planes also don't have things like overhead compartments, and wiring, and piping above the pilot.

Redesign, my friend. Redesign.


I'm still stuck on high rise buildings; no one had a personal escape plan (better chance to survive unless a 747 directly hit your floor. If one were lucky to get through the decompress of an airline mid air hitting the sky scraper or other types of OOPS; wore underneath a business suit onto the plane a G-force bird suit (that one that has wings and a tail, draft capability) and ALSO everyone in the 120 story high rise also had one stored in a file cabinet; (fly to central park or the Hudson River) and those riding in the plane could nullify intent; as in thwart the original process (equalization therefor no action regards potential chaos) no IT WOULDNT HAPPEN and if freakishly it did no one dies because they saved themselves in advance of the event; as everyone is prepared for the future catastrophy it wouldn't occur. I know that we cant change the universe's intentions but we can alter IT in mid step just by saying "I outsmarted you" ( I had a better idea), we were prepared to survive this. This may be too Zen for some.
edit on 1-8-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing
If I lived in a high rise building I would have repelling gear and know how to use it. That's just how I'm wired. I would also consider a parachute. People parachute off buildings all the time. I will jump out of a vehicle if I see it's heading over a cliff. I've done that and broke some bones but I survived.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: PleiaDsClusterDck
I've never flown Malaysia Airlines but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that their customer service is probably better.


Not the customer service angle that concerns me.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
All storage will be below the aircraft but you can bring a small bag and put it in the bottom of your seat(storage). You still get AC and all that, it will be directed in a different way(from the bottom). You would still have windows. A total redesign of future aircraft is needed. I think these pods could still be implemented in current airplanes, though.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje
All storage will be below the aircraft...


And what about the cargo which in many cases generates more revenue than the passengers?


I think these pods could still be implemented in current airplanes, though.


Really? How? Explain how to safely jettison a cluster of passengers without injury or death being caused to them or others.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: Zaphod58
All storage will be below the aircraft but you can bring a small bag and put it in the bottom of your seat(storage). You still get AC and all that, it will be directed in a different way(from the bottom). You would still have windows. A total redesign of future aircraft is needed. I think these pods could still be implemented in current airplanes, though.



Above a prime example of why your career is not aircraft design!



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky




Optimism?

Ha ha, I like that.

The one time I went sky diving it was three hundred
and fifty dollars with a 5 hour training course to go
without someone riding my ass tandom. Plus every
first time jumpers chute has to be packed by an
inspector from the FAA. So shutes for passengers
despite being logistically impracticle in a negative
way and uncomfortable. There are legalities that
prevent just anyone from being handed a parachute
so they can go take a flying leap.
edit on Rpm80114v54201400000056 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Catacomb
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?


Oh lord, I don't even know where to start.

If we take the recent shooting down of MH17 as an example, a chute would not helped saving one of those poor people.

You are aware what an explosive decompression at 10,000ft means?

It means 5 seconds max until loss of consciousness since there is not much oxygen to breathe.
It mans a sudden drop of air pressure which makes breathing impossible, causes disorientation and all internal organs like the lung to swell, some even speculate so far as to say that the lungs would literally explode.
It means -50C temperature....which means that extremities, your face etc. would freeze WITHIN SECONDS. This not even counting that you move with 500mph through -50C winds at 10,000ft altitude....it will rip the clothes of your body.
It means extreme, lethal forces when you're sucked out or thrown out of a moving plane in this environment.

A parachute would be ENTIRELY WORTHLESS.

That being said, flying is extremely safe. I take 5 flights any day over driving on the Interstate. The "dangers" of flying are just over-exaggerated since people see it as a loss of control, they THINK they have more control, say in a car, even if dangers to have an accident in a car are much, much higher than with flying.

I had the most "scary" moments during travels NOT on planes (except that my EX with her paranoia and anxiety drove me crazy..."OMG..what's that smell..is the plane burning?" "Is this normal?" etc....) the most scary experiences were at the drive TO THE AIRPORT IN THE CAR.

Realize that in our time, on busy airports like O'Hare etc. planes land and take-off in thirty second intervals. It is an insane amount of planes that are in the air every day with millions of people flying. Even with the recent tragedies, the number of accidents compared to the high number of flights is very, very low.
edit on 8/1/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:15 PM
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.


Yes you're entirely correct, we don't have that intelligence. I just don't know what else to reply there.
As Zaphod already pointed out, most crashes happen while landing or take-off, many actually with the planes already on or still on the ground. (Planes rarely "just explode" while at cruising speed).

This already makes any parachute solution more or less impossible. Go ahead and look at the history of past flight disasters, and then think about a way having people saved. You can't shoot out people on parachutes when the plane is very low, ironically you also can't just eject people on parachutes at a height of 10,000mtrs. How would such a system work, say, if a plane would explode, crash into a building, or crash during landing?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
A parachute wouldn't be any more useful than the "under seat flotation device" they tell you about in the safety video.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
A parachute wouldn't be any more useful than the "under seat flotation device" they tell you about in the safety video.


Yes, especially on a flight from Chicago to Seattle : )



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
family guy quote - Angry Man: Oh great, I always end up sitting next to a damn baby. ..." Wah wah wah my ears are popping and there's no way to console me Wah! ... I'm a baby!" (sorry for the stupid quote this thread keep reminding of that bit)

My point for the post though, what about the babys?
Lets say we did all have parachutes and oxygen and safe exit speeds, what do we do about the kids? have little parachutes for them too? Tie them to ours?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Explosive decompression as shown in action movies is a myth if it was true these people would have died!

Flight 243

That happened at 24,000 ft!!



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
There will still be cargo.
If a plane is going to crash, a person has to assume they will die. Having at least a chance is better than nothing. By ejecting the pods the people escape the doomed aircraft the same way a fighter pilot ejects. The only difference is that each row of seats is an ejectable pod...or even singular pods. All with parachutes, and they float. I could draw up a blueprint of what I'm talking about but it would be a waste of my time. No airline will waste money on it and I'm sure it has been discussed by many engineers before.(warning: Start of sarcasmistic post) If not, then GD I'm smart and should patent it!(/sarcasm)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008
Yeah, because I would put peoples lives above profit.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join