h a l f b a k e r yThe embarrassing drunkard uncle of invention.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Cocoon Chute Seats
Seats that envelope passangers into cocoons on parachutes in evacuation circumstances. | |
Every seat in such an airplane is equipped with an eject button, which generally is inactive. Pilots are equipped with evacuate button (which could self-activate under emergency circumstances).
When evacuation is activated, the airplane's belly explodes while releasing all the baggage to make space
below the seats, and the eject buttons activate for all passenger seats.
When a passenger clicks the eject button, his/her seat falls down through the framework.
Under the framework that holds all seats, for each seat there is a corrugated soft gum-like transparent material that envelopes the whole seat with the passenger as the force of gravity pushes them down (so, the whole person would appear in something like a cocoon, protected from strong cold wind)
In each seat, there is also an "expand parachute" button, that activates the parachute to expand.
P.S. I guess the category [Vehicle: Aircraft: Safety] would suit this better, but there is no such.
Please click link for awesome vintage animation.
http://www.youtube....watch?v=lGX0l_p6OqE
Starts at about 3:30 [doctorremulac3, Jul 22 2014]
Softie Parachute
http://www.parachut...ie%20Parachutes.htm
Widely purchased and used by GA pilots. [8th of 7, Jul 22 2014]
Lots of pilots are GA ...
http://en.wikipedia...ki/General_aviation
Not just a pretty fuselage ... [8th of 7, Jul 23 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I'm not sure this would be a good idea. For one
thing, commercial aircraft spend most of their
time at 30,000 feet travelling at 400+ mph.
Neither of those circumstances is propitious for an
exit. |
|
| |
For another, I'm not sure how many people
survived the missile strike on MH17. Possibly
many, given the intact state of many of the
bodies. But there are very few situations where
people are left alive yet where their best option is
to exit the aircraft. |
|
| |
Next, there are something like 30 or 40 million
scheduled flights per year. If this system deploys
wrongly on just 0.000001% of those flights , it will
kill more people than it could possibly save. |
|
| |
Finally, the cost would be huge. Passengers do
not want to pay for safety (except in the
immediate aftermath of a crash). |
|
| |
If you are going to spend money to make aircraft
safer, there are much much better ways to do it.
Give everyone a smoke hood. Ensure that existing
tracking capabilities are actually used (they
weren't on MH370). Build new airports to replace
the least safe and most overcrowded ones. |
|
| |
// If you are going to spend money to make aircraft safer, there are much much better ways to do it. // |
|
| |
I'm wondering, what are the primary causes of death in aircraft accidents in general? Impacts? Burns? Suffocation? Low pressure? Freezing? If we know the associated numbers, we could think by targeting how to prevent the factors that do kill more people, while leave out others. |
|
| |
(a) Trauma in the case of bombs, missiles, or most
crashes |
|
| |
(b) Fire in the case of some crashes and crash-
landings |
|
| |
(c) Anoxia in the case of high-altitude partial
breakup. [EDIT actually I don't know. There's no
reason the depressurization would kill you, and
the anoxia wouldn't have time be fatal if you were
in freefall from 30,000ft.] |
|
| |
After MH17, witnesses said they saw bodies falling.
If
someone wasn't killed by the initial impact or the
breakup of the plane, they'd be above 20,000ft for
something like 30-40s. Given that it takes maybe
20-30s
for someone to lose consciousness at 30,000ft,
and given
that many of the bodies were intact and clothed
(ie,
some at least had escaped the impact and had not
been
violently ripped at), it's quite possible that some
people
were conscious until they hit the ground. |
|
| |
I would also guess that smoke hoods and/or better
fire
suppression would save the most lives per pound. |
|
| |
Welcome to the Halfbakery, [Mindey]. |
|
| |
I'm not so sure I would worry about being "protected from strong cold wind". I'd be more worried about this mechanism being dependent on individual passengers activating their own chutes. |
|
| |
I think I'd run it on automatic via sensor input with a pilot override / backup system. I think it could be fun to be napping or tossing back a cocktail only to find yourself following your luggage to the ground when the system malfunctions. |
|
| |
For cases a) trauma and b) fire, it seems like
adding the ability for passengers to leave the
aircraft if it is filling with smoke, or before it hits
the ground could be effective. However I think
that in the
majority of crashes, the first indications that
there will be a crash occurs too close to the
ground
for parachutes to open effectively. |
|
| |
Fume hoods may actually be the next most cost
effective life saving device on a plane, but the
ability to bail out would probably add the most to
the passenger perception of safety. I bet if an
airline advertised that they had planes equipped
with ejection seats, there would be a large
number of people with a poor understanding of
statistics and physics who would be willing to pay
$10 to $50 more per flight for the small added
safety of a system like this. |
|
| |
// a large number of people with a poor
understanding of statistics and physics who would be
willing to pay $10 to $50 more per flight for the small
added safety of a system like this.// |
|
| |
In that case, the most effective solution is to tell
passengers that there are ejector seats. Charge
them the extra $50, and use half of that to provide
smoke hoods. |
|
| |
" If you have children traveling with you, please follow the instructions in the folder in the seat back in front of you, and use the lock out / slave to your seat control settings. The airline cannot be held responsible for children who are allowed to eject themselves" |
|
| |
"In case of malfunction, please contact your premature eject liaison." |
|
| |
Thank you, [normzone]! Looks like an amazing place! |
|
| |
// I think I'd run it on automatic via sensor input with a pilot override / backup system. // |
|
| |
Me too. One could make the activation of evacuation mode be automatic, but I think the ejection choice should be left for the individual passengers to decide, because it would make sense making sure you had properly fastened the seat-belts. |
|
| |
Welcome [Mindey]. Hope you enjoy your stay here. A
+ for the sentiment as we all struggle to find safer
airlines. |
|
| |
//we all struggle to find safer airlines// |
|
| |
But do we? I don't think we do, except in the
immediate aftermath of a disaster. |
|
| |
Impromptu poll: when you last chose a flight, did
you choose the airline on the basis of safety
information? |
|
| |
[blissmiss], thank you! Is there some good way to track the annotations that mention my username? Should I make my own custom views? What custom views would you recommend to have? I think something like "inbox" would be useful. |
|
| |
// Impromptu poll: when you last chose a flight, did you choose the airline on the basis of safety information? // |
|
| |
// Impromptu poll: when you last chose a flight, did you choose the airline on the basis of safety information? // |
|
| |
Yes. Which airlines are safer, which seats have higher survival rates, etc. |
|
| |
[Mindey], I wish I could help you, but I can't. I read all
the new ideas and comment on the ones I understand,
have some knowledge of, or just like the poster and
have not seen them in a while. Other people have
different views and they would be of more assistance.
But welcome again. It's a crazy place to visit, but you
usually leave having gained some nugget of insight into
something foreign to you. Tata. |
|
| |
Additionally, I'm pretty sure almost all airline crashes take place during landing or takeoff where bailing out wouldn't be an option. |
|
| |
That being said, some enterprising (if immoral) entrepreneur could probably sell an emergency parachute featuring carry on bag. Basically a small parachute in a backpack. When you hit turbulanceseses clutch it to your chest, grip the rip cord with white knuckles and whimper softly like a little pussy to entertain the other passengers. Would it save your life? Probably not, but people would probably buy them. |
|
| |
By the way, the B-58 Hustler, the world's most beautiful vehicle, not just aircraft, featured quick closing pods for ejecting from a plane travelling at mach 2 without mussing up your hair. I believe the whole thing parachuted to Earth but maybe the pilot jumped once it reached terminal velocity, I'll have to check. |
|
| |
Nope, you stayed in it and it acted as a life raft. Please see the awesome animation in the link. |
|
| |
//Basically a small parachute in a backpack. // |
|
| |
// Would it save your life? Probably not // |
|
| |
Definitely will given that; |
|
| |
You exit the aircraft at least 1000' above terrain; |
|
| |
You do not have injuries that preclude you deploying the 'chute; |
|
| |
You do not exit the aircraft at an altitude where you are disabled by
cold and/or anoxia before you deploy the chute; |
|
| |
You do not land on anything nasty, i.e. sharp pointy rocks, trees,
france. |
|
| |
//Widely purchased and used by GA pilots// |
|
| |
I'm sure straight pilots use them too. |
|
| |
<refuses to rise to bait> |
|
| |