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.

 

Detachable passenger aircraft design: The future or is there something wrong with this picture?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Yip, as I said earlier:




Then, which section authorizes the split?
A suicidal pilot probably wouldn't anyway, so the cabin crew perhaps?
But are they always sane or of sound judgement?

A bit of turbulence, put on some Slayer, and there goes the lever ..




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: rickymouse

Yip, as I said earlier:




Then, which section authorizes the split?
A suicidal pilot probably wouldn't anyway, so the cabin crew perhaps?
But are they always sane or of sound judgement?

A bit of turbulence, put on some Slayer, and there goes the lever ..


Yup, I knew a few pilots pretty well. I would be a little concerned about them having a lever like that if I was in their plane.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol. They sure have a strange definition of "flying to safety"



Is that a Windows Desktop screen too?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman


I think Zaphod is absolutely right for the paper reasons for not having it. In addition to that I think that the occurrence of fatal air crashes; knock on wood, is too low for the cost to be worth the savings. I know that sounds cold, because it is, but flying is already among if not the safest way to travel; why go overboard? Add in the fact that budget airlines and smaller less complicated aircraft are becoming the norm, this is just opposite of where the market can go at the moment.
I think an emergency recovery system that slows and cushions falls would be more reliable and less costly to implement. Something along the lines of how they put rovers on Mars, a controlled crash.

edit: now I'm thinking, how many lives would be lost if this system was used over a populated area, or a school.. Imagine this thing sets itself down softly through a paper thin roof on a packed public school cafeteria, yea we saved 120 passengers but poor sally and the rest of the class of 2023 are toasted.


edit on 20-1-2016 by Caughtlurking because: afterthoughts, kind of like cloitis



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

Fair enough, although relax.
I never said it had to be tested on the public.

We're just really debating design options for now.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: halfoldman
A recent article illustrates an innovative design for an aircraft that detaches the cockpit from the cabin in an emergency.
The idea is that the passengers float down safely with a massive parachute, while the pilots can keep flying to safety.
It's already been shelved by airlines due to cost factors for now, but I think, as far as the passengers are concerned, more is wrong with this picture.



For the full article: www.iflscience.com...

Firstly, wouldn't the cabin section have to remain horizontal for the parachute to open, unless they want it to float down vertically, which means all passengers and cabin crew not strapped into their seats will fall out the bottom?

But OK, as long as it doesn't land on my head.

Wouldn't it be better to have potential cockpits at both ends (with expandable wings in an emergency for the cabin section), and then suicidal pilots, for example, can fly one way, and the passengers can be flown to safety via the other?


disposable passengers now a? Lets hope the passenger bit got parachutes in it. Always throught of a detachable cargo bay to speed up loading and unloading but I didn't think they'd come up this.

good past thanks


edit on 20-1-2016 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2016 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

i forgot most of Americans are obese and gluttonous. its really shameful to be honest as a human race.

Shame on your Obese Americans, Eat less, Move more!



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
This thread reminds me about the time I had to explain to a new airmen why we had no Parachutes on the AWACS, he just flat refused to understand it wasnt needed.

Finally the pilot chimed in... to live through jumping out of this pig we have to be flying straight and level... if we are flying straight and level I can land the plane.

Anything else were dead in minutes, so we got rid of the chutes to save money on gas.... dead weight =higher fuel costs.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

We used to have parachutes on the -135 family. Had three of the five crew jump from a jet once too. As soon as they did all the problems cleared up and the pilots landed normally, except for the missing crew door.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
This is all a perfect demonstration of the cognitive dissonance people experience when booking air travel:

...They want the latest, best, safest, (including Ejector Seats for everyone!), yet complain if a ticket to fly across the continent in under four hours costs more than a couple-a-hundred bucks.

The cost to operate any variation of this idea would make economical flight incredibly expensive.

Besides, try and imagine an airliner corkscrewing into the ground at a few hundred kts...what do you think would happen to that flaying fuselage as it separated from the rest of the plane?

Or the results of a spinning, rolling jet with dozens of ejector seats sprinkling the sky like skittles?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

But the ticket price would possibly include a few moments of weightlessness on the trip down in the released compartment.

Heck of a deal for those frequent flier miles.

Would this not tend to plant the idea in the back of people's minds that air travel might not be as safe as they thought.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
When i first saw this article i immediately thought "wow, the airlines will love this, for reasons other than safety".
With a re-jigging of the design you could have a cleaned and prepped cabin with passengers already loaded on the tarmac, then loaded under the Carrier whilst its being fueled and if needed, a crew change. Disembarking passengers pod sent to arrivals on landing complete with luggage. The turnround time would be massively reduced and i expect wear and tear on the engines reduced due to them not having to go through a cooldown/warmup cycle.

As for the safety aspect, its going to need some kind of vectored thrusting to stabilise the cabin after separation. Just popping chutes aint gonna cut it lol



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

They're not going to engineer it because, it's not necessary, it's far too complex, heavy, and expensive, and it would price tickets of aircraft out of reach of 90% of their passengers.

In 2014 (the final numbers for 2015 aren't in yet), there were 56.5 million flight hours, and 25.6 million departures, just looking at commercial aircraft. There were 278 onboard fatalities caused by accidents. Adding MH370, which wasn't counted in the official stats, as they don't know if it was an accident or not, that brings the total up to 517 onboard fatalities, in 25.6 million departures. That's as close to zero as you're going to see in aviation, ever.

Explain it to the relatives, not me. One years casualties are misleading. There are thousands who spent their last minutes plunging to their deaths from the stratosphere, thats why the proposal, as silly as it is.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You want more then? Because in the last ten years plus accidents have dropped significantly. But of course you know what's best right? Regardless of what statistics show.

Over 90% of crashes are takeoff or landing where this pod will be useless. But hey let's price normal people out of flying in the name of safety. They don't need to fly anyway.
edit on 1/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
With the shift in CG I can't see the remainder of the plane flying back at all and if the pilots can fly away safely, why ditch the passengers? If (big if) they would engineer something like this it should just shed the wings and bring all souls on board down with a BRS type system.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Face it, this "Acme" level technology only Wile E. Coyote would consider feasible. Only much less amusing.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I guess in a war-zone (where at least one passenger plane was hit by a missile, whether deliberately or accidentally) it makes more sense than, for example, countries and regions of the globe that are at peace.

If ether section of the plane should be hit, wouldn't detaching them quickly enough save the other section, rather than the whole plane ripping apart or burning up?

Maybe that's what they were thinking in the Ukraine.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

They wouldn't have had anywhere near the time to eject it. The aircraft exploded almost as soon as the missile donated.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join