So Parachutes Are Out
Published November 11, 2002
So, why not just replace the seat cushion with the parachute and strap 'em in there? There are similar pilot's emergency rigs made... but the problems of fitting and adjusting the harness remain, only this time it must be done in the aircraft instead of in the terminal, dramatically increasing time-at-gate. You can't build automatic strap retraction devices into the parachute — they'd add too much weight and bulk to be practical. Then there's the problem of keeping the parachute in the seat frame until the user needs to exit the falling aircraft, but making sure it releases properly (and easily, with no assistance) then and only then.
But assume you've managed all this, and everyone has a parachute — which I might add will weigh at least 20 pounds, thereby reducing the airliner capacity by 10% or more, but this is actually a very trivial point in the overall context of costs — the next big question is, how do we get everyone out of the airplane in case of an in-flight accident? With them surviving the exit, I mean.
The military allegedly does exits at airliner cruising altitudes, but that requires special equipment (including individual oxygen bottles) and protective clothing, and a whole lot of training. Temperatures are far below zero even before windchill gets added in, and freefall times down to more-survivable altitudes are long enough for frostbite to be very real — eyeballs and lungs included. Decompression (including the bends that SCUBA divers face) becomes a factor. The aircraft will have to descend to a reasonable altitude — under 20,000 feet for sure, but that endangers heart patients and asthmatics, so 15,000 is better (although still not safe for everyone) — before allowing passengers to exit. Otherwise, they're almost certainly dead anyway, just from the cold and anoxia.
But that's not the worst: the aircraft must slow to around landing speeds, because otherwise the passengers will receive severe injuries from the air impact alone upon exit. These are known as "flailing injuries" (which includes broken necks), and begin around 200 knots even for trained military personnel; above 400 knots even pilots securely restrained in ejection seats are usually killed. But airliners cruise at well over 500 knots... the aircraft must be under control during this slow-down and descent, then. Your "explosion" scenario, if at cruising altitude and airspeed, will kill even the passengers who are blown free of the aircraft.
Assuming the aircraft is in stable flight at an acceptable airspeed and altitude, getting the passengers out becomes the next issue. There's the problem of the doors... after D. B. Cooper did his little stunt lo those many years ago, the government mandated changes in all airliners: it's now impossible to open a door in-flight. So all that would have to change... and if it did, there's still the problem of getting everyone out of the airplane; even ground-emergency exits using inflated slides result in many injuries, so imagine what an in-air exit will be like. The aircraft aren't designed for such exits — leave from the forward door and you'll likely hit the wing (or worse, be ingested by an engine), leave from the aft door and it might be the tail; don't exit vigorously enough and
you'll be slapped into the door frame, then the side of the aircraft; some planes have tail doors, but not many do. At best, exits will take place through two doors, and the passengers will slide down a pole like the Shuttle astronauts will have to; now, empty a plane of some 200 passengers at the rate of maybe one every 5 seconds (you won't be able to run them out the door like exiting skydivers), and it takes many minutes to get everyone out. What you've actually required here is the control and time necessary to land the airplane... a better idea overall, I think.
- So Parachutes Are Out
- Published: November 11, 2002
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Small planes like the Eclipse 500 would prove useful and economical for future parachute development.
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_43b/leadnews/185910-1.html
Make a humongous parachute for the whole airplane. Problem solved!
By the way, isn't it a little silly to worry about busting an ankle when the alternative is impacting Mother Earth at terminal velocity?
"...while making the experience extremely annoying and uncomfortable..." Hahahaha...ha! Compared to what? I don't get to fly first class.
Though he was apparently annoyed that I posted his refutation of my "parachutes for everyone" idea, Mr. Loney did a pretty convinving job of refuting the practicality of giving all passengers a parachute.
I like the parachute for the plane idea, though.
If we could just equip planes with a big enough airbag, the plane could just bounce off the ground when it hits, like the Mars landers do. Yeah, that'll definitely work . . .
I forgot about that, Joe. Although I imagine the parachute needed for a 100 ton airliner would be about the size of Rhode Island.
Actually, Tom, I was kidding about the parachute. It was surprising to see this in action at the link provided by Joe. Troy Loney could probably tell us the size of a parachute needed for a 70-ton 757 airliner. I was remembering the 3-chute configuration used for the 5-ton Apollo sea touchdowns, which averaged a speed at impact of 28 feet/sec. One big problem with the parachute idea is that jet-propelled high altitude vehicles don't necessarily encounter problems that can be solved with a parachute descent. Obviously a chute attached to the two disintegrating Space Shuttles woudn't have made any difference.
The parachute for the whole plane concept is fascinating and I'm glad to see that it exists at least on a very small scale, but we need something even bigger, even farther out of the box to solve this problem.
And despite what knowledgable but cranky
Troy says, if they cared enough, they'd come up with something.
I got ya, Duane, I was just playing into the whole parachute idea as a joke.
And really, it wouldn't be possible on an airliner, which rarely have problems in flight that threaten the safety of the passengers. The most dangerous part of flying is taking off and landing, where a parachute or any kind of recovery system would do no good anyway. It's kind of scary when you think about it - when you board an airplane, you are entirely dependent on that plane making it in one piece to your destination. Unlike a car, if an accident occurs, you're more likely to die from it than survive, let alone walk away as you can from many car accidents. And it's still the safest mode of transportation out there . . .
Eric, do you really think airlines and aerospace manufacturers could come up with a 100 percent safe system if only they "cared enough?"
Wow.
There is no 100% - do I think they could do a better job with safety if it were the very highest priority? Of course, don't you? What's with this smug patronizing attitude today?
You can disagree, but it is unseemly to assume some kind of moral/intellectual superiority.
They HAVE come up with something; in fact they come up with something every day. All the somethings add up to air travel being the safest way to travel. I'm not sure what else they can do for you.
And I thought righties wanted business to consider MAKING MONEY the very highest priority.
Me? Smug? Me? Patronizing? Me?
Vive l'Air France!
To Troy: Despite the fact that you called it dry boilerplate, I was fascinated by the details provided in your email. Not poking fun. I really thought it was an interesting read for someone who knows basically nothing about parachutes and/or planes other than I get nervous on flights. Sorry you didn't want it to be posted, but I am glad I got a chance to read it.
As for the other statements, I am sure if financial feasibility weren't an issue we could definitely "build a better mousetrap" so to speak. Certainly it is for the dreamers at this point because statistically (as well as financially) it doesn't make sense, but I have to believe with the level of knowledge that is apparently out there in our science community, that the same civilization that produced the Segway could come up with a way to stop planes from crashing.
Now if we could find a way to fly a plane without using flammable fuel... now that would be impressive!
My God, surely at this point in history, after this site has been up for 16 months, you are not calling me a "rightie"?!? I am strongly for the War on Terror, that's about it from a "rightist" view. I have liberal views, libertarian views, mostly very centrist views. I am no more a "rightist" than Thomas Friedman or Christopher Hitchens for supporting the war.
I want inexpensive, safe travel. It will never be 100%, it can be much better. My original post, written over a year ago, primarily decried poor human judgment and refusal to take weather into account.
Consider yourself pigeonholed Eric. Now, please continue opposing abortion, lowering taxes for the rich, promoting war, listening to Rush Limbaugh, watching Fox News and hating Al Franken.
Thank you. You may go.
I SAID GO!
I'm so happy you've decided to participate in our game of ideological Red Rover!
Who's next?
Send CA right over! This reminds me of the companion "why don't they make the whole plane out of the stuff they make the black box out of?" inanity. The whole thing gvies me flashes of Charlotte "Mrs Garrett" Rae asking, "If they're dead, why are they grateful?" I need a drink.
I thought this was very interesting reading. I always thought it would go without saying that the best chance to survive is to stay on the plane. A Chinese jet once spiralled from 41,000 to 3,000 before the pilots got the engines to restart.
Eric, have the Smug Pricks released their Holiday 03 Tour Schedule yet?
Hmm, so I take it you think it unlikely that DB Cooper survived his jump? Am just an amateur interested in the case would like to get an expert opinion. Thanks.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/1771)
Eric, I knew your post was a rant. As you say, "duh"...
From your response (and considering your original post), I'm getting the message that you don't consider the facts to be of any significance in a rant. Nor, apparently, now: the graf I quoted did not in fact follow the discussion on "air brakes"; it was a standalone statement, _followed_ by the "air brakes" comment, which in context reads more like sarcasm directed at NASA/airlines-industry than anything else.
In my line of work, I get proposals like that contained in your rant several times a year; that's where the vast majority of my response came from -- the opposing rant I've composed over the years. The truly interesting ones usually involve bringing the whole airliner back, but I digress. The point to take home is that I've seen them far too often to be "highly offended" -- they're just as silly as they always have been, and I roll my eyes and fire off yet another dry response.
I guess if you can assume I'd miss the sarcastic nature of your rant, I can assume you'd miss the sarcastic nature of my response. But there's one big difference between the two...
I didn't malign a bunch of people who really don't deserve it -- the pilots, who lay their lives on the line much more often than you (who respond by complaining), and the people who support them, and the airline industry whose money is involved and on the line. It's the business of all these people to provide services for people who demand them, then feel free to bitch about the aspects that aren't under the control of the service providers.
That was what annoyed me, and provoked me to dig up the boilerplate and respond. It seems you're still in "bitch" mode, too... more's the pity. So I have just two questions left:
Why do you suppose I emailed you, instead of posting my response in the comments? And, did I authorize the posting of that private communication?
-- posted and emailed