Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
EZYman
Topic Author
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:48 pm

Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:16 am

This may sound stupid, but when I plane crashes on water, how many times have life jackets been used and actually saved peoples lives? I never imagine I plane landing so smoothly on water that people just jump out of the emergency exit door and float to safety. Surely there must be some examples where parachutes could have saved far more lives than life jackets. Ok, logistically I'm sure it's easy to sit here and write about how 200 people are going to jump out a doomed plane to safety. But I think you will see my point that people would have more chance of survival jumping out before the plane crashes.

I'm not being 100% serious as if there was a higher chance of survival, then airlines would have cabin crew trained as paratroopers, but any thoughts?
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:21 am

Most accidents happen near landing of take-off, which wouldn't leave enough time to evacuate using parachutes. Or, e.g. the TWA800 - the plane broke up in midflight, parachutes wouldn't have saved anyone.

One plan I've seen suggested is to have one huge parachute for the entire plane. That would lessen the impact into ground enough to allow many of the better-built passengers a chance to survive.
 
Robbie86
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:35 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:21 am

Due to the high speed a plane has and the pressure in the air the spine will brake if jumping out. That's why.
 
User avatar
SkyGourmet
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:11 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:22 am

How would you want to get all the passengers out of the plane in time? The plane would need a huge ramp at the tail.
 
jamesontheroad
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:52 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:23 am

Even getting a simple life jacket on seems difficult enough for many passengers during emergency situations... parachutes would be a whole different ball game. I've only done one solo jump but the amount of training and kit needed to do it makes me very sceptical there could ever be a passenger parachute device. You need more straps (under legs, over shoulders etc) and parachute that is checked, rechecked and checked again. They're also hefty pieces of kit that would add lots of kg to the aircraft weight if strapped under every seat.

However, how about a jet fighter style ejection system? Keep everyone in their seats and fire rows of three people out of the plane, with one big parachute to bring 'em down safely? Big grin

*j*
 
FlyingColours
Posts: 2332
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:13 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:26 am

Well there are just a few problems to overcome before it could be pheaseable.

1 - Aircraft doors open inwards before opening out, and when they open out they open against the flow of air. Of course you can depressurise the aircraft which ovecomes one issue but you still need to force the door outward.
Of course the 767, L1011, DC10 & MD11 go upwards but they still plug in.

2 - There is no safe space to jump well except the DC9, MD80s and 727s with rear airstairs. Jumping out from the last exit on a conventional airliner means you'll get sliced in half by the horizontal stabs and going forward of the wing means you'll get minced by the engines, or hit with the wing.

3 - trying to re-stow any accidental parachute in the cabin would be a nightmare at least LJ's can be deflated and crammed in an overhead.

IIRC there have been several occasions where lifejackets have been used and saved lives.

Besides LJs are cheaper to manufacture and easier to use, can you imagine doing a manual saftey demo with a chute?  Smile

Phil
FlyingColours
Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
 
User avatar
antoniemey
Posts: 1418
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:38 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:28 am

Quoting Jamesontheroad (Reply 4):
However, how about a jet fighter style ejection system? Keep everyone in their seats and fire rows of three people out of the plane, with one big parachute to bring 'em down safely?

Ah, but that would mean adding an overhead door for every row... and also would limit the options for airlines on how they put in their seats... Don't think that'll happen.  Smile
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
 
pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:31 am

Parachutes would definitly save more lives in the past than lifejackets.
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:59 am

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 7):
Parachutes would definitly save more lives in the past than lifejackets.

I can't think of one accident in the past where parachutes would have saved lives. What accidents are you thinking of?
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:08 am

What was the quote from "Tommy Boy" about lifejackets? Something along the lines of "what are the chances of us landing in water? Odds are we are going to crash into the side of a mountain."

There is a reason why the military jumps out of slower planes...you can't survive (under most conditions) the jump out of a jet at high speed.

Quoting Jamesontheroad (Reply 4):
However, how about a jet fighter style ejection system? Keep everyone in their seats and fire rows of three people out of the plane, with one big parachute to bring 'em down safely?

Well it would get rid of the overhead bins and avoid the whole carry-on luggage issue so many folks on here rail against.

Quoting Joni (Reply 1):
One plan I've seen suggested is to have one huge parachute for the entire plane.

Already exists for small planes in case of engine failure. Can't even begin to imagine the size needed for a 747 or where it could even be stored.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:13 am

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 8):
. What accidents are you thinking of?

When JAL 747 lost tail (and all hydraulics) over Japan. They were airborne for 30 minutes before they crashed.
And DC-10 also crash landed killing some passenger.had to
Airtransat happily landed in the lajes after loosing all the fuel (what if they ditch into the ocean).
Ethiopian also ditch into the ocean with most passenger drowned or killed on impact
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:16 am

Quoting SkyGourmet (Reply 3):
How would you want to get all the passengers out of the plane in time? The plane would need a huge ramp at the tail.

Simple just have small explosives, and blow out all the doors at once and let everyone get sucked out of the nearest exit at FL300  Wink Fastest evacuation EVER!!! All kidding aside, if the plane is decelerating at a good pace I think that would solve the issue of hitting the wing or tail issue, but probably wouldn't stop someone from getting stuck in the engine. Out of 300 pax on a widebody how many would get their parachutes on in time, and know not to pull the cord too early? Who's responsible if a 290/300 ppl survive and those that didn't was due to their chutes not deploying. Considering the number of pax on airliners today it will be tough to have "untrained" pax keep from getting tangled up in mid-air. What about babies? So many issues with parachutes. Even if you can open the door, the panic environment of a crashing airliner would make it too difficult to have passengers parachute safely.

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 7):
Parachutes would definitly save more lives in the past than lifejackets.

Do you have any examples?
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:16 am

Quoting SkyGourmet (Reply 3):
How would you want to get all the passengers out of the plane in time? The plane would need a huge ramp at the tail.

Maybe airlines could install ejection seats in the cabin for everyone, that would be quite a ride  Wink

Arluna
 
Lt-AWACS
Posts: 2120
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 2:40 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:19 am

We don't even have parachutes on the E-3 (707). They were removed as they are nearly impossible to use in most emergencies, and we even have an escape chute that goes straight out the bottom of the airplane.

Chutes would be heavy, take time to put on, and serve basically no purpose unless you had survival kits for North Sea cold waters. And then only in a rare circumstance would it be able to save lives.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Hermano bebe, que la vida es breve
Io voglio fica ogni giorni da mia bella moglie!
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30067
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:26 am

Time Factor.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:27 am

Quoting EZYman (Thread starter):
But I think you will see my point that people would have more chance of survival jumping out before the plane crashes.



Quoting EZYman (Thread starter):
I'm not being 100% serious as if there was a higher chance of survival, then airlines would have cabin crew trained as paratroopers, but any thoughts?

Maybe it's just me, but I think you've answered your own question...

Quoting EZYman (Thread starter):
This may sound stupid, but when I plane crashes on water, how many times have life jackets been used and actually saved peoples lives? I never imagine I plane landing so smoothly on water that people just jump out of the emergency exit door and float to safety.

I'll grant you that it doesn't happen often, but every once in awhile...

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19561016-0&lang=en
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19560402-0&lang=en
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700502-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19780508-1

Quoting EZYman (Thread starter):
Surely there must be some examples where parachutes could have saved far more lives than life jackets.

If you review accident stats I think you'll find that the vast majority are in the approach/landing and takeoff phases, and that those don't provide much warning nor sufficient altitude for a bailout. Likewise for CFIT or midair accidents--no notice at all, and its over before one knows it.

The only accident that even remotely comes to mind where hitting the silk could have theoretically been useful was the United 232 accident at SUX back in the late 1980s. There was quite a bit of time from the disk failure in the #2 engine until they got to SUX. Note closely that I said "theoretically" because of the issues and points that FlyingColours raised are still quite valid.

Bottomline in all this is that if chutes were actually worthwhile in the safety equation, FAA, CAA and the other regulatory bodies around the globe would have mandated them decades ago. Since they haven't...

[Edited 2006-07-21 18:30:28]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
futureuapilot
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 7:50 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:30 am

While I think a parachute for every pax wouldn't be to realistic, my flight instructor and myself were discussing this company that is making a parachute that could fit virtually every aircraft. It would act like a Cirrus SR-22's parachute system and could float an aircraft up to the A380's size to the ground. Sure the plane would probably be unflyable due to the warp in the airframe afterwards, but you just saved alot of pax. I'll find the link for the company and post it here as soon as I find it.

-Sam
The Pilot is the highest form of life on Earth!
 
Hagic
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:19 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:32 am

Refer to the extensive discussion about this issue in this thread.
There's only one freedom of the press: The freedom of the survivors - (G. Arciniegas)
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:45 am

A friend of mine that jumps, occasionaly travels with a parachute in carry on. I can imagine the comments.

"Welcome aboard Mr.Cooper", or others.  Smile
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
Gr8Circle
Posts: 2633
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:00 am

It takes hours of training on the ground and several practice jumps before a person can be certified as fit to make jumps on his/her own.....there is a reason for that....

Do you seriously expect women, children and older people to master the art of jumping in a panic situation and execute a perfect jump????

I'm sure this aspect would have been well thought over by aircraft designers over the years and they would have good reason to reject the idea....
 
GAIsweetGAI
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:19 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:04 am

Problems with parachutes:
-"ex-passenger" suffocation due to lack of oxygen
-drowning problems if the passengers are airdropped over water
-passenger collection problem- they won't be able to stay in a group

Problems with life jackets:
-the plane will disintegrate, at least partially, upon impact- that Avro Vulcan "landing" on water in "Thunderball" looks improbable.
-they're useless above, let's say, 15 or 20 ft, or a safe jumping distance
-they're useless above anything that's not liquid

So here's a good idea:
-the life jacket under your seat is replaced by a parachute under your seat
-above all doors, there's something like what the astronauts use on the space shuttle- like a metallic "rope"
-for evacuation, the plane first descends to a safe breathing altitude, the F/As open the doors and deploy the "ropes", the passengers put their parachutes on their backs and take their seat cushions (they float and have an imbedded GPS transmitter for search & rescue operations, right?), and they jump, holding on to the "rope" to avoid getting sucked up by the engines... and pray that the parachute will open.
"There is an art, or rather a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
 
don81603
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:07 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:11 am

Let's say everyone managed to escape and deploy their chute. Can you see the disaster of 400+ chutes opening in roughly the same place? The ones that DID open properly would be tangled by the ones that didn't, and everyone would end up in the same DNA pool on the ground.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:12 am

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 8):

I can't think of one accident in the past where parachutes would have saved lives. What accidents are you thinking of?

ValuJet 592 comes to mind, I think.

Aside from the practical issues raised by everyone else, it would also be far too expensive to justify. Parachutes are thousands of dollars, right?

AAndrew
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:07 am

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 20):
seat cushions (they float and have an imbedded GPS transmitter for search & rescue operations, right?

No, not all seat-cushions float. It depends on the carrier and their preference for a flotation cushion or life-vest. These cushions are not easy to swim in-- provide little protection if the person goes uncouncious-- and are not suitable for children or infants.

And they do not have imbedded GPS transmitters in them. The emergency locator transmitter/locator beacon is located physicially in the aircraft (including those attached to slide/rafts, or the 1-2 portable ones in the cabin), and activates upon impact, contact with water, or physical deployment.

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 22):
Parachutes are thousands of dollars, right?

The biggest barrier is clearly cost. The addition of parachutes increases weight, which carriers absolutely don't want to minimize for fuel costs. The system would have to survive the cost/benefit analysis.

Having said that, I always wondered what the outcome would be if there was a ballistic recovery parachute (i.e. a really big one for the entire plane) for certain air disasters which involved total loss of control, such as: the American Airlines A300 crash in 2001, Alaska Airlines Flight 261 with the loss of the T-Tail, as well as JAL 123, among others.
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:30 am

Once I had a strange idea:

They should put 3 very big parachutes, that would glide te whole plane down safely. I think this is the best option
 
haggis79
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:05 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:36 am

Quoting GAIsweetGAI (Reply 20):
-for evacuation, the plane first descends to a safe breathing altitude, the F/As open the doors and deploy the "ropes"

well... we have learned in this thread that for passengers getting out safely a slow, controlled flight at low altitude is necessary.... so here's my question:

in what kind of circumstances slow, controlled flight at low altitude would be possible, while a safe landing would not...? Maybe the Gimli glider or Air Transat A330 come to mind, but apart from that...? Plus, all pax and crew have survived those incidents....
300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
 
aircanl1011
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:38 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:52 am

Okay, so everyone jumps out to safety, every parachute opens, no one gets tangled and they all glide down to the ground. Hooray!!

If they are over land they can walk away. If they are over water they are all wondering how come they didn't get a life-jacket before they drowned

But what happens to the B747 that is now still in the air with no one at the controls, hope to hell it doesn't land on my house. Or do we tell the captain that he has to stay on board and die.

Or maybe he can steer it out to sea or to an uninhabited area before jumping out himself.

I really don't think this is happening
CYMRU AM BYTH / WALES FOREVER
 
MD88Captain
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 9:50 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:01 am

You guys make my head hurt. I don't know whether to cry or laugh. Because of the overall sincerity I guess I'll cry. Maybe we should install a series of giant balloons under the aircraft that inflate with helium in an emergency and lower the the aircraft to a gentle if bouncy landing. Lateral contol could be achieved by thrusters like the space shuttle. Perhaps this in conjunction with giant parachutes that are made of kevlar and will not shred at 500kts. Or maybe a better solution would be to lay a 10' layer of foam rubber - no, that Temperpedic stuff - below every airway in the world (and of course ban any direct legs). Perhaps an airbag system for every seat? A five point restraint harness? Wrap each passenger in bubble wrap?
 
UTwriter
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 10:55 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:27 am

LOL- we should just attatch parachutes to each and every seat and then if there is an energency, the belly of the plane opens and the seats fall outward...if you're strapped in-good for you....if you're in the bathroom...oh well!  Silly
 
twal1011727
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:36 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:51 am

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 10):
When JAL 747 lost tail (and all hydraulics) over Japan. They were airborne for 30 minutes before they crashed.

The aft pressure bulkhead ruptured disabling the flt controls in the tail. At no time did the tail fall off. If it did, the A/C would've nose dived and do pretty much what AS261 did - rather quickly.

KD
 
stormbringer
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:49 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:50 am

Remember the China Airlines 747SP that fell over 30,000 before the crew regained control? Imagine if you had bailed out after 25000ft of falling only to watch the plane fly away as soon as your chute opened?  yell 

https://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...=8&prev_id=0877818&next_id=0667185
It's not road rage. It's COURTESY ENFORCEMENT.
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:20 am

Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 27):
Perhaps an airbag system for every seat?

Well, as it turns out,aircraft are being equipped with airbags in passenger seat belts. For instance, all the upper-class Virgin Atlantic seats have an airbag in the seat belt; other aircraft install this same design in bulkhead facing seats to meet the head impact survivability requirement.
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
User avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:48 am

I'll just take my chances and hope that nothing bad will happen. Which is almost always the case. The worst thing that ever happened to me on a plane was drunk guy barfed on me (Republic DC-9, LAS-DEN). I could not imagine the chaos on a plane that is going to crash. I was on a TWA MD-80 from STL to YYZ in 1999 that had a radio failure and had to return to St. Louis. Several people in my view were freaked out by something that simple. I could not imagine people being calm enough to use life jackets, let alone parachutes. I think of Airplane " Assume crash positions" and everyone goes everywhere.
My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:31 am

Quoting Robbie86 (Reply 2):
Due to the high speed a plane has and the pressure in the air the spine will brake if jumping out. That's why.

Why would the high speed of a plane and the pressure in the air cause the spine to STOP if jumping out?

I think you meant break = separate into parts. Not brake = stop.
 
Indy
Posts: 4928
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:40 am

OH I so agree with this thread. How many people have been saved by the vests? How many people could have been saved in the past by parachutes? Putting a vest on a plane is like putting a parachute on a boat. It just makes no sense.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7858
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:53 am

One very simple reason....weight. Add 100-200-400-500 parachutes and forget about taking any bags. Then where would you store them...?? Do you have any idea how much space that will take up...?? Then teh ungodly cost...???
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
Indy
Posts: 4928
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:55 am

Why not just skip the whole life vest thing. They are pretty pointless. Save the money and eliminate the vests and that pre-flight instruction on how to use something that you will never use.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:45 pm

Quoting Indy (Reply 36):
They are pretty pointless.

There are a lot of airports that have runways close to bodies of water, and ovverruns can and do happen. (Example: Air China B747 that overran into Hong Kong's Victoria Harbor.)
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
Indy
Posts: 4928
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:55 pm

And... with the endless millions of people that fly can you tell me the number that have been saved by a life vest?
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:12 pm

That's not really a fair question since it is never stated explictly in accident reports that a life-vest itself has made the difference between life and death.

But ditchings do happen, like the DC-9 in 1970, and it would be a terrible, terrible thing if they did not have life vests on board as they scrambled for safety...
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:09 pm

Quoting Indy (Reply 38):
And... with the endless millions of people that fly can you tell me the number that have been saved by a life vest?

There are at least 4 accidents listed back in reply #15, and you have to ask that question?

It seems reasonable to conclude that at least some passengers wouldn't have been able to dogpaddle to stay afloat long enough without them and would have drowned. How many? One, Ten? Fifty? Who knows--we have to take it on faith that the equipment (that was there for a reason) did its job, as intended.

Likewise, how many people have been saved by the use of cabin fire extinguishers? I've never heard that quantified, yet, we still insist that aircraft are equipped with them...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:33 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 40):
I've never heard that quantified, yet, we still insist that aircraft are equipped with them...

The same applies with Emergency Locator Transmitters (the portable ones in the cabin), drop-down oxygen masks (there has never been a case to my knowledge where oxygen masks have conclusively been proven to prevent a passenger death, although they have prevented people from passing out), the inflight doctor's kit (we put cardiac arrest medication like epi and Lidocaine in it, but hardly gets used since it's the defibrillator that really matters), the fire axe...

But not having these things on the aircraft would be silly and immoral. You never know when it might be needed.

The only way a large-parachute recovery system will be implemented in an large aircraft is if it is mandated by the FAA. That's how we make sure the rest of the emergency equipment stays in the aircraft!

Emergency equipment as, OPNLguy says, is NOT trivial!
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
aeroplan73
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 4:59 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:04 pm

I am sure this has been talked about before, but how about a parachute for the actual aircraft. I read somewhere that a company was working on it for smaller single prop aircraft. I wonder if it's possible to rig a few cutes to slow down, or float a commercial jet to safety.  cloudnine 
I remember, the choices were chicken or fish. I had the lasagna.
 
pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:17 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 35):
Add 100-200-400-500 parachutes and forget about taking any bags. Then where would you store them...?? Do you have any idea how much space that will take up...?? Then teh ungodly cost

they would fit under the seats like lifejacket. And not all parachutes are heavy.
 
stormbringer
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:49 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:27 pm

I can't believe some people are actually making a case for such a silly idea. Wow!

[Edited 2006-07-22 10:49:23]
It's not road rage. It's COURTESY ENFORCEMENT.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:43 pm

A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:48 pm

Quoting Aeroplan73 (Reply 42):
but how about a parachute for the actual aircraft. I read somewhere that a company was working on it for smaller single prop aircraf

As mentioned earlier, it's called a Ballistic Recovery System. The website of one of these aircraft is BRS Parachutes and they claim to have saved 190 lives.

http://www.brsparachutes.com/

Quoting Stormbringer (Reply 44):
I can't believe some people are actually making a case for such a perposterous idea

I'm with you on this one. I think we've firmly established that individual parachutes are not the answer...
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
aeroplan73
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 4:59 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:59 pm

Quoting MarkHKG (Reply 46):
As mentioned earlier, it's called a Ballistic Recovery System. The website of one of these aircraft is BRS Parachutes and they claim to have saved 190 lives.

I missed that in the forum. Thanks for repeating, I will check out the website.
I remember, the choices were chicken or fish. I had the lasagna.
 
Indy
Posts: 4928
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:26 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 40):
There are at least 4 accidents listed back in reply #15, and you have to ask that question?

The latest accident listed in those links was about 28 years ago. With numbers like that at some point you have to say this is foolish to spend this kind of money on something that never gets used. How many passengers have been served in the past 30 years in the US alone? 5 billion? Probably alot more since ORD & ATL alone combine for over 100 million right now each year. Provided all the passengers on the latest of the 4 flights listed survived because of the vests that would put the survival rate at about 0.0000001%. Whether they all lived or died doesn't really matter. That tiny number of people even impacted by a water landing is so insanely small its almost a joke. I don't now of an industry on this planet that would take safety measures based on an injury/death probability that low. Most wouldn't spend a time or a minute of time on it.

I like those "in the event of a water landing" announcements on a route like IND-DFW.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Why Not Parachutes, Rather Than Life Jackets?

Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:43 pm

Quoting Indy (Reply 48):

The latest accident listed in those links was about 28 years ago.

Ethiopian Airlines hijacking was in 1996. Air China water overrun in Hong Kong was in 1993. A Garuda B-737 ditched into the Bengawan River in 2002. And the ditching of a Tuninter ATR-72 occured last year.

There are many incidents involving water...and were survivable.

You would want to deny these people their life-vests or flotation cushions?
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos