|
|
Post by throwingbrick on Mar 9, 2015 22:30:25 GMT 10
Some of you will of read the title and think i'm crazy and the others will probably throw the "you're more likely to die driving to the airport" argument or "you can't open airliner doors at altitude" well let's just say theoretically that you were in a crash where the fuselage and plane was so badly damaged that you could jump out a hole if you had a parachute (one of the cheap unsteerable military and emergency ones) then who's too say you wouldn't survive? in history there has been a few people who've survived incredible drops like the Airhostess from Czechoslovakia of survived a 20,000 foot drop when her plane blew in half. So what is everyones thoughts on Aeroplanes and airliners in general having cheap emergency parachutes on them, i'm all for it to be honest even if its another 10 mins on the safety brief and another 50 bucks per flight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Mar 9, 2015 22:43:14 GMT 10
If people on board have reasonable intelligence, it may be a good idea. If it's the average "ohmahgordimgonnadie" crowd, it would probably increase the fatality rate.
If I understand correctly, proper use of a parachute takes extensive training and repetitive practice.
Let's not even think about the numpties who would pull the cord each time the plane hit minor turbulence...
|
|
arkane
Senior Member
Posts: 172 
Likes: 113
|
Post by arkane on Mar 9, 2015 23:37:11 GMT 10
Exiting any plane at 900kmph and fourty thousand feet with or without a parachute is basic suicide!
To be able to use the chute you would need a clear exit you would need time to don chute you would need an orderly departure
you also need to be conscious and with explosive decompression not likely and after exit you will quickly freeze to death!
So far not good
and then to think of the court cases from the relatives of those that donned a chute but still died, gord blimey mate decades and billions there!
No no chutes on commercial jets! not feasible!
|
|
Morgo
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Likes: 662
|
Post by Morgo on Mar 10, 2015 18:34:42 GMT 10
If any airliner started the "we now have parachutes" I'm looking for a different company!
Its really a waste of time as its not practical. Why?
- You likely will not have enough time to don parachute when pilots have deemed it a certainty that you are going down.
- Or enough time to exit plane
- OR the ability to actually get the parachute on and move to an exit (have you ever tried walking in a plane when it suddenly hits turbulence?) Safe to assume the plane is not going to be flying steadily in most emergency situations.
- people in general do not handle emergencies well. Doesn't matter if you do, the 5 people around you won't and they will impede you.
- exiting the plane too high you will die, you don't have an altimeter and you can be sure if there was a door open your going to be pushed through it by the crowd.
- the parachute may fail
- people get entangled in other peoples chutes
The list could go on.
|
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Apr 8, 2015 16:20:39 GMT 10
|
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Apr 8, 2015 19:40:16 GMT 10
I think they'll be as useful as an ejector seat on a helicopter!!  Wrong, there are in fact ejector seats on attack helicopters, there is one of two systems: 1/ The rotors are exploded off, they spin off into the blue, then the seats eject as normal. 2/ The rotors stay, but the seats are ejected sideways, with a height and orientation correctors, thus even if you are up side down, or sideways, it will push you out of the vehicle, then vertically, then right you to be upright, then deploy the chute.
Now as to chutes on commercial aircraft, bad idea: 1/ 20% of people will panic and make 75% of the other passengers panic as well. 2/ 5% of people will have enough intelligence to work out how to use a chute, but getting out of an airliner would be a bit tricky: 1a/ you would have to patiently wait until you got below 15,000 feet. 1b/ you would have probably 60 seconds to jump, get clear and then pull your chute, not enough would have presence of mind to think clearly enough to make it out.
On the face of it, chutes would be wonderful, sadly though, it would probably not make that much difference in most circumstances.
|
|
shinester
Senior Member
China's white trash
Posts: 3,119
Likes: 3,578
Email: shiny@ausprep.org
|
Post by shinester on Apr 8, 2015 22:56:34 GMT 10
Explosive ejection in the seat like fighter pilot seats could work. Altitude needs oxygen. Being frozen to death at altitude would be a real concern. The extra weight, size and costs, the reinforced fusalage that mean large increases in user costs. Of course then there's the danger of the roof explosives or the ejection explosives being set off accidentally or on purpose. So, if you had a fighter pilot seat, with a flight suit, with oxygen and a trigger that only the captain could initiate and having only people who are strapped in ....
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Apr 8, 2015 22:59:22 GMT 10
Let's suppose parachutes were supplied, along with a perfect system of deployment and absolute safety (yes, I'm assuming a lot here).
What would happen AFTER everyone's safely on the ground?
|
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Apr 9, 2015 9:47:18 GMT 10
Let's suppose parachutes were supplied, along with a perfect system of deployment and absolute safety (yes, I'm assuming a lot here). What would happen AFTER everyone's safely on the ground? Or in the water? about 50% of flights are over the ocean. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Apr 9, 2015 10:42:24 GMT 10
Let's suppose parachutes were supplied, along with a perfect system of deployment and absolute safety (yes, I'm assuming a lot here). What would happen AFTER everyone's safely on the ground? Or in the water? about 50% of flights are over the ocean. That's absolutely true, but those who survive will probably drown. The point I'm attempting to make is that if a group of unprepared people suddenly find themselves on the proverbial "desert island", how long will it take for them to literally be at each others' throats? |
|
krull68
VIP Member
Posts: 535
Likes: 875
|
Post by krull68 on Apr 10, 2015 16:02:16 GMT 10
Or in the water? about 50% of flights are over the ocean. That's absolutely true, but those who survive will probably drown. The point I'm attempting to make is that if a group of unprepared people suddenly find themselves on the proverbial "desert island", how long will it take for them to literally be at each others' throats? About 12 hours, sometimes less, sometimes a bit more, but 12 hours is usually about right on average. |
|
shinester
Senior Member
China's white trash
Posts: 3,119
Likes: 3,578
Email: shiny@ausprep.org
|
Post by shinester on Apr 11, 2015 4:16:00 GMT 10
At some point cost versus lives kicks in. Most people drive cars, the risks are greater than airlines. We could not drive or we could drive at 5km/hr and never be at a risk of death. Of course the cost of that would be significant. The risks versus reward of driving lends itself to driving as safely as we can, though not too safe as to impede progress. Airlines are of a lesser risk than driving, it is of course still a risk. A group on a desert island would have a lot more in common than they usually have. I would suggest that basic needs such as water food and shelter would take priority as per Maslows hierarchy of needs. The sharing of a crappy emotional situation being a common thread and connection. Much like the variety of personalities thrown together and bonds built through hardship during basic training, through being in the trenches. A shared disaster will tend to bring a bond within people if everyone's in the same boat. Of course this is the initial phase, when people are looking for their basic needs, food and water. When there's none of any of them, people are likely to bond and work together, particularly true if some kind of leadership emerges here. If then there's enough of one's basic resources, then we move up the hierarchy of needs, which might provide some problems though smaller groups tend to be able to work out their issues [we're from tribes of 50-100 historically], sort out the pecking order, set up boundaries and territories [humans are fiercely territorial, though not always about space, it could be other forms of territory]. If there's not enough of one resource or another then things can change as Niccolò Machiavelli aptly described, we are 'simulators and dissimulators' perhaps thought of as both deceptive and honest or good and bad. So things might get ugly, though with some common thread, 'a tribe' in the same situation, this might indeed hold them together as history has shown again.  I hold a greater belief in people working together as a small group of people in such a disaster than a SHTF scenerio. We have seen it many times in natural disasters in this country and world wide. The little groups/tribes tend to form up, we see it everywhere even now, parties, gangs in prison, a common thread tending to bringing it together. The common benefit of all and of course these groups could in more dire situations exploit or take advantage of other people [preying on the weak] or groups. Of course I would suggest that neighbors have been shown to work pretty well with one another in times of disaster historically, evidential to how humans tend to act. We are both good and bad. We protect the tribe and attack other tribes if need be. It's always been that way. |
|
