A380x4trent900 From Australia, joined May 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2891 times:
My fellow aviation enthusiasts;
I have a brillant idea - why don't we make an aircraft were the entire passenger and crew cabin could ' eject ' and come back to earth by parachute when the plane is doomed?
Just like fighter pilots do - it's saved many lives!
The fuselage could split open like the space shuttle system does at the top and the passengers/crew could be in a pressurised shell with 4 massive parachutes.
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1552 posts, RR: 25 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2869 times:
I'd like to hear your "brilliant ideas" about how an infant on her mother's lap,80 year old lady and 2 UM's which we had onboard yesterdays flight supposed to eject from an airliner and land safely.
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2864 times:
Weight, complexity, dangerous fuels, servicemen go thru extensive training in aircraft egress, etc.
Vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8226 posts, RR: 28 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2852 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Look man, while there's no harm in brainstorming, you have to realize that there are people who deal with aviation safety on a daily basis. While the current airline travel is not perfect in terms of safety, it happens to be safer than almost all other forms of travel.
You do realize that this idea would require parachutes of nearly the same scope as your airliner parachute idea:
I'm sorry if I seem condescending. Written word is not a good way to express emotions
I like to encourage everyone to keep asking questions in Tech/Ops (by far the best forum on this site in my opinion), but people tend to get a bit wary when you start the post with, "I have a brilliant idea."
~Vik
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2840 times:
Quoting A380x4trent900 (Thread starter): I have a brillant idea - why don't we make an aircraft were the entire passenger and crew cabin could ' eject ' and come back to earth by parachute when the plane is doomed?
Someone has already pointed you to the "giant parachute" thread.
More like bomber pilots. AFAIK this sort of system exists on the B-1, the F-111 and some others. But in combat aircraft the pilots are a very small part of the total weight, and you can make the chutes pretty small.
- The solution you are describing is very complex and expensive to build and maintain.
- The weight penalty would be huge, probably doubling the weight of the aircraft.
- Large parachutes of this kind are extremely difficult to build.
- Large parachutes are extremely difficult to pack.
- Parachutes have a rather limited speed range. If you deploy a chute too slow, it might not fill. If you deploy it too fast, it will rip to shreds.
- Most accidents are during take-off, approach and landing. In other words, mostly too close to the ground for chutes to be useful.
- This sort of solution would only really be helpful in case of a structural failure, and those are only a small subset of all accidents.
- How would you solve pressurization problems? If your chute deploys at 35000ft, you propose purposely breaking the pressure vessel, meaning everyone will suffocate on the way down.
As others have mentioned, tech/ops is a good place for serious discussion. This doesn't mean we can't have "pie in the sky" concepts. In fact, I rather enjoy those. But prefacing with "I have a brilliant idea" tends to rub people the wrong way.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Redcordes From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
It's all about economics. Actually, the accident rate is incredibly low with major carriers ( about 1 in 4 million). Also, most accidents happen in the takeoff or landing phase, so you're talking about spending a lot of money for something that would increase costs substantially and might be effective once in 15 to 20 million flights. Ridiculous.
"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
EGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1686 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2821 times:
Mate, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with parachutes. Suggest you go to local parachute-jump place, and do one, just get it out of your system, please!!!
And when you've done it you can start your unhealthy obession with bungees and come up with a "brilliant idea" about how bungees can save airliners.......
GrandTheftAero From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 254 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2816 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6): But prefacing with "I have a brilliant idea" tends to rub people the wrong way.
I agree. If your "giant parachute" thread wasn't bad enough... it's a total slap in the face for those us who design airplanes to be safe and reliable when someone like you comes along with some hair-brain idea to "fix" the flaws in our design. Sure there's room for improvement in everything, but do realize the years of effort that goes into designing a system. It takes more than a simple add-on fix like a parachute to solve complex aerospace problems.
A380x4trent900 From Australia, joined May 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2807 times:
WELL ACTUALLY, WHAT I'VE SUGGESTED IS TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU LOT ARE NOT YET READY FOR! DOUBLING THE AIRCRAFTS WEIGHT? WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.
FIGHTER PILOTS DO IT - SO WHY AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN'T WE, SUPER-INTELLIGENT HUMANS, DEVISE A SYSTEM WERE 200 PEOPLE AT ONCE AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN?
WE HAVE PUT A MAN ON THE MOON IN 1969, DON'T TELL ME 37 YEARS LATER THAT WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS NOT POSSIBLE!
THIS COULD SAVE MANY LIVES, IT IS TECHNOLOGY 30 YEARS AWAY THAT COULD AND SHOULD EXIST TODAY!
JUST IMAGINE IT - SEEING A CABIN FULL OF PEOPLE IN THEIR SHELL EJECT OUT OF THEIR PLANE AND PARACHUTE BACK TO EARTH
THIS MAY BE NEEDED IN 1 IN 50 MILLION FLIGHTS - BUT IN THAT SITUATION IF IT SAVES 300 PEOPLE IT IS WORTH THE SAVED LIVES, SAVED GRIEF AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
EGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1686 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
Quoting A380x4trent900 (Reply 12): WE HAVE PUT A MAN ON THE MOON IN 1969, DON'T TELL ME 37 YEARS LATER THAT WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS NOT POSSIBLE!
No one has said it isnt possible, just not practical.
As it stands, the weight penalty would be too great, as would the cost, so it is NOT pheasible. Trust me, its fine to have an idea and believe in it, as long as its a believable idea. I've had this argument many a time re: my ideas on SSTs.
And splitting fuselages, parachutes etc just mean more things that could go wrong.
EGTE.
PS: I'm sure theres a rule about not posting a whole reply in capitals.....
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2793 times:
Quoting A380x4trent900 (Reply 12): WELL ACTUALLY, WHAT I'VE SUGGESTED IS TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU LOT ARE NOT YET READY FOR! DOUBLING THE AIRCRAFTS WEIGHT? WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.
Have you ever jumped out of a plane with a 'chute strapped to your back? It's a deceptively complex piece of technology. And we're only talking the weight of a human at low speed falling in a controlled fashion (no tumbling). I have no doubt that you would at least double the weight of a commercial aircraft if you implemented this system.
Quoting A380x4trent900 (Reply 12):
THIS COULD SAVE MANY LIVES, IT IS TECHNOLOGY 30 YEARS AWAY THAT COULD AND SHOULD EXIST TODAY!
I think you'll find that most people in tech_ops are actually pretty open minded about "pie in the sky" stuff like this. For example we've had great discussions on laser propulsion and other things that are way more than 30 years away.
There are numerous new threads started every week by posters who are curious about ideas they have, and even the cocky ones are patiently responded to in a factual manner.
We are united here by a fascination with aviation technology, including new and potential developments. If posters "kill" your idea it's not because they are close minded, it's because the idea either violates the laws of physics or is just not practical.
Quoting A380x4trent900 (Reply 12):
WE HAVE PUT A MAN ON THE MOON IN 1969, DON'T TELL ME 37 YEARS LATER THAT WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS NOT POSSIBLE!
Possible, yes. Practical, no.
Quoting A380x4trent900 (Reply 12): THIS MAY BE NEEDED IN 1 IN 50 MILLION FLIGHTS - BUT IN THAT SITUATION IF IT SAVES 300 PEOPLE IT IS WORTH THE SAVED LIVES, SAVED GRIEF AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
Saving 300 lives out of 50 million flights is definitely not worth the money you are proposing should be spent. It's all well and good to ask a pax in a theoretical context "would you pay for a technology that saves you if x or y happens once every 50 million flights?". But they'll probably change their minds right quick when you point out what implementing the technology would do to the price of the ticket.
Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 13): PS: I'm sure theres a rule about not posting a whole reply in capitals.....
Technically it is allowed to post in all caps, but I'm pretty sure it would fall under the "inflammatory" heading.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2777 times:
This idea is not new. I distictly remember such an idea that made the pages of Popular Mechanics or Science, I don't remember which, that included illustrations. The one thing that sucked was the ejection platform, for some reason, did not unclude the flight crew.
EGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1686 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2769 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14): Technically it is allowed to post in all caps, but I'm pretty sure it would fall under the "inflammatory" heading.
Thats what I meant, I was just being a smart arse!
No comment considering what it is you've suggested.......
Quoting A380x4trent900 (Reply 12): JUST IMAGINE IT - SEEING A CABIN FULL OF PEOPLE IN THEIR SHELL EJECT OUT OF THEIR PLANE AND PARACHUTE BACK TO EARTH
Just imagine it..... seeing the parachute fail because of something that your billions of dollars worth of research didnt show up. The people this device should've saved die an even worse death.
I admire your imagination.... But your idea just won't work as it is right now.
Vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8226 posts, RR: 28 Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2768 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
A380x4trent900:
Your second post (reply 12) is really not the kind of post that adds anything to the Tech/Ops forum.
I sincerely doubt that you were/are posting here in any form of seriousness.
I can't speak for the rest of the Tech/Ops regulars (though I think they would agree), but please, if you're going to post here, try and use a less derogatory tone.
If you're unable to do that, please refrain from posting in Tech/Ops.
Thank you.
Edit: A380x4trent900, sorry if I was unduly harsh. If your intentions are good, then I apologize.
~Vik
[Edited 2006-03-10 16:55:58]
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
EGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1686 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2764 times:
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 17): If you're unable to do that, please refrain from posting in Tech/Ops.
Bri2k1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 988 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2755 times:
I've been on many flights where I've dreamt of selective passenger ejection...
Dude, like others have said their are profesionals who are trained specifically in aircraft safety and they have considered this sort of thing thousands of times over and the reason we dont have this sort of thing is the reason why everyone on an aircraft doesnt have a personal parachute or anything else like this and that is because of the cost to haul that crap around.
Say it cost $10 per flying hour to carry this thing round, and an aircraft may fly for about 12 hours of a day, thats $120 a day, now times this by 50,000,000 is $6,000,000,000 to carry that round just in the hope it will save 300 lives. major companies will not pay that!! as it would only cost say $5,000,000 to cover it up with advertising to get their reputation up!
Please do some basic math before you post this sort of thing
Rgds --James--
Edited for my numbering mistake
[Edited 2006-03-10 17:29:19]
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
Joness0154 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
Quoting A380x4trent900 (Reply 12): WELL ACTUALLY, WHAT I'VE SUGGESTED IS TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU LOT ARE NOT YET READY FOR! DOUBLING THE AIRCRAFTS WEIGHT? WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.
FIGHTER PILOTS DO IT - SO WHY AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN'T WE, SUPER-INTELLIGENT HUMANS, DEVISE A SYSTEM WERE 200 PEOPLE AT ONCE AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN?
WE HAVE PUT A MAN ON THE MOON IN 1969, DON'T TELL ME 37 YEARS LATER THAT WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS NOT POSSIBLE!
THIS COULD SAVE MANY LIVES, IT IS TECHNOLOGY 30 YEARS AWAY THAT COULD AND SHOULD EXIST TODAY!
JUST IMAGINE IT - SEEING A CABIN FULL OF PEOPLE IN THEIR SHELL EJECT OUT OF THEIR PLANE AND PARACHUTE BACK TO EARTH
THIS MAY BE NEEDED IN 1 IN 50 MILLION FLIGHTS - BUT IN THAT SITUATION IF IT SAVES 300 PEOPLE IT IS WORTH THE SAVED LIVES, SAVED GRIEF AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
NO, YOU'RE RIGHT. WE'RE NOT READY FOR IT. WE'LL NEVER BE!
FIGHTER PILOTS DO IT. WHY? BECAUSE THEY ARE GETTING SHOT AT!
ARE YOU SURE WE PUT A MAN ON THE MOON? IF THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOESNT HAVE AN EJECTION SYSTEM, WHY SHOULD COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS?
ACTUALLY IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T SAVE MANY LIVES. MOST ACCIDENTS OCCUR DURING THE TAKEOFF, APPROACH, AND LANDING PHASE OF FLIGHT IN WHICH AN EJECTION SEAT WOULD BE USELESS.
MOST EJECTION SEATS WEIGH ABOUT 150POUNDS. FOR 300 PAX, THATS ABOUT 45,000LBS RIGHT THERE IN ITSELF. NOT TO MENTION THE HIGHLY VOLATILE ROCKETS YOU WILL BE SITTING ON YOUR WHOLE FLIGHT!
PLEASE, CALM DOWN AND THINK ABOUT THINGS LOGICALLY BEFORE YOU POST!
I'm done now. Peace
I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
Keep in mind that the reasons military ejection seats work....
The weight of the passenger(pilot) of a plane with an ejection seat is a MUCH, MUCH smaller proportion of the plane's total payload than is the case with an airliner. Because of this, the weight of the seat is not as big a burden. Include an ejection seat for every passenger of a commercial jetliner and you have a 737 sized plane with the payload of a 19 seat Beachcraft. Detaching the whole cabin could carry an even bigger penalty. This would destroy the airline industry for all but the super-rich. Do you want to force that many people back onto the highways? This kind of thinking costs lives.
Military ejection seats have rockets to take the whole seat to an altitude at which the parachute can work. Without the rocket, the seat is only be usefull if the plane is under control and at a reasonable altitude. It would be useless at takeoff and landing, which is when the vast majority of accidents occur in civil aviation. How many airline accidents are there where at some point the plane was under control, at a reasonable altitude, when the pilot found out there was a serious problem? I will tell you. NEARLY ZERO. Even in such a case, the pilot would probably decide that trying to land carries less risk. From what I can remember, there have been no civil accidents in the last few decades where a system without an escape rocket would save any lives. The increase of weight and complexity for the parachute and cabin would almost certainly cause many safety problems.
As for carrying rockets powerfull enough to blast a whole cabin a couple thousand feet high - the weight of such rockets would probably prevent the plane from getting off the ground. The weight neccesary to strengthen the cabin enough to take the punishment would be even worse. Which would be a good thing, since carrying that much rocket fuel would make such a plane more dangerous than any civil airliner flying today. The risk is acceptible to the military because thet are better at managing the stuff and because they are willing to accept a much higher level of risk than airlines are.
AS FOR YOUR THINKING..... Your suggestion is based on a falacy commonly encountered when modern day westerners such as myself think about things outside their area of expertise. this is the "SAFETY FIRST" FALLACY. You think that anything that increases the safety of one part of society, no matter how expensive and how small the gain, should be done. Anything that increases risk, no matter what the gain, should not be done.
If we were to follow this philosophy consistently, we would all just lay in bed all day and die of innactivity for our troubles. We ought to look at the total risk we encounter in everyday life and aim to reduce THAT. We also ought to look at the benefits of taking certain risks. This may mean that we take greater risks in flying, for example, in order to get people to avoid the greater risk of driving. Or, dare I say it, we build more nuclear power plants in order to avoid building far more risky coal or natural gas systems.
GrandTheftAero From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 254 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2717 times:
Let's do some rough math, shall we?
Operating Empty Weight of a 747-400 Freighter: 361,700 lb
Operating Empty Weight of a 747-400 Pax: 397,000 lb (419 tri-class interior)
I assume the difference between the two (35,300 lb) is weight of the seats and other pax-specific equipment. Now I add the weight of pax (419 x 175 lb = 73,325) for a total of 108,625 lb.
This is the weight that would have to be ejected using A380x4trent900's cabin ejection system. This is conservative since a system like this would have to maintain a pressurized evironment and stability during descent. This would undoubtedly add hundreds of pounds. Also the g-forces imparted by an ejection rocket and the shock of parachute deployment would force designers to severely overdesign the fueselage sturcture, again adding hundreds of pounds.
If you had bothered to take out your calculator before running your mouth you'd realize that the weight of an ejection system capable of pushing out a 108,625 lb capsule would render the airplane useless.
Wingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 835 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2693 times:
A380Trent, why don't you study for a degree in aerospace engineering and design an aircraft yourself? That is, one with a one-piece fuselage, but also featuring a seperate ejectable cabin and an enormous parachute for the whole plane? Thats if you can get a job with a manufacturer who will entertain the idea, and then you can try and sell it to an airline! Good luck!
26 MarkHKG: While I know that passenger cabin ejection is not feasible, what are your guys thoughts on a Ballistic Recovery System as seen on light and experiment
27 Grbld: MarkHKG, will you please check the other thread in this forum about parachutes? Not coincidentally, it was started by the same dude. A380, I have a su
28 Vikkyvik: Sigh....can a mod please lock or delete this thread? It's not going to be of any value whatsoever. Sorry, I don't know how to suggest deletion for an
29 Tu204: Well, nobody bothered to mention another obvious problem - in a bomber when the crew ejects, there is a specific order of events, you cannot just have
30 Starlionblue: Nono, bashing nincompoops is fun! There's a check box in the "suggest deletion" dialog.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined May 2005, 15 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9219 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1552 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 835 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
