• Ghostalmedia
    link
    fedilink
    English
    521 year ago
    1. Passengers airplane often fly too high and too fast to safely parachute from
    2. Passengers need to be trained to parachute
    3. Planes rarely crash
    • TerkErJerbs
      link
      fedilink
      371 year ago
      1. If every psycho and their dog knew there was a parachute onboard for them it would happen often that some drunk asshole decided today was they day they’re gonna jump from a commercial flight
      • @ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        15
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No it’d be some Karen who got scared by turbulence trying to jump after convincing half the plane that she knew they were going to crash because of it. The same type of “do your own research” crowd that convinced half the population that COVID was a hoax because they know better!

      • VodkaSolution
        link
        fedilink
        101 year ago
        1. It would take a lot of time to have 150 persons jump and people go crazy even when the plane safely lands, just to go off board
        • @meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          101 year ago
          1. (Or maybe addendum to 1. Or 3.) Most complications in flights occur near takeoff and landing. These are altitudes not conducive for parachutes.
  • @fubarx@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    421 year ago
    • To jump out, they would need to open the doors. There would be problems with decompression at above 10K.
    • You have to deal with people unable to use parachutes. Children, elderly, disabled, afraid of heights, and panicked.
    • There’s an assumption an airplane remains level enough. If it’s spinning or nose down, trying to reach an exit is another problem.
    • If jumping out ahead of the wing, there’s a risk of getting sucked into the engines.
    • Parqchutes are bulky. Trying to get them out of storage and distribute them to a couple hundred untrained people is a tall order.
    • Putting on a parachute, correclty strapping it, knowing when and where to pull the cord, and knowing how to land without breaking bones, hitting tree branches, or ditching into water. These are all issues you can’t teach during preflight safety instruction.

    Overall, everyone would be better off staying put, not panicking, and hoping a plane and trained pilots can get everyone on the ground, safely.

    • @FleetingTit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      261 year ago

      If a plane can stay level enough for long enough to get people into parachute gear and out the door, chances are good that the pilots can land that plane, which significantly decreases the chances of injury to the passengers.

    • partial_accumen
      link
      fedilink
      37
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Short answers from the video: (but its a good video if you have the time)

      1. They weigh a huge amount and take up a lot of space, so carrying them on every flight would be crazy expensive for extra fuel cost and reduce other baggage cargo that could be carried.
      2. Current day passengers have difficulty just putting and keeping a simple seat belt on. Properly putting on a parachute, especially in the small space you have in an airliner, and successfully deploying it outside are beyond what airline passengers are capable of doing.
      3. Passenger jets fly too high and too fast to survive jumping out of one at cursing altitude. Even if you successfully put on the parachute, got out of the plane without being sucking into an engine or hitting a control surface at 400MPH, you would quickly suffocate from lack of oxygen and/or freeze to death from the sub zero temperatures at that altitude.
      • @brian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Specifically about that third point, how long would it take to get into a “livable” range if you were free-falling? Like obviously hypoxia is a legit concern, but are you going to get out of that range quick enough to avoid real complications?

        • You’ll survive for quite a while once you’re below 6000 m. In free fall that would take you around 90 s, assuming a fall from 11000 m, and that it takes 200 m (5 s) of fall to reach terminal velocity of 200 km/h.

          This is quite rough, but gives an appropriate order of magnitude. In those 90 s, you would be very likely to pass out and be guaranteed to get severe frost bite. We’re talking major amputations levels of frost bite, as you would be moving at 200 km/h, exposed, in temperatures in the -50 C to -10 C range. I’ve seen people get frost bites moving at 40 km/h in -15 C for a couple of minutes with just a sliver of skin exposed.

          So short answer: You might survive getting into the survivable range, but at the very least you will require intense and immediate medical attention upon landing. Seeing as there will be potentially a couple hundred people spread out over a large, possibly remote, area requiring this attention, it’s unlikely that many, if any, would survive the ordeal, even if most people survived the initial 5000 m of fall into the survivable altitude range.

        • blargerer
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          I have no idea what a livable height is, but it take about 3 minutes to hit the ground falling from that height (obviously there is a lot of error here depending on the exact person).

      • Seigest
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Also just being realistic those parachute are probably just going to be questionable bargin bulk buys. They’d be designed to be as cheap as possible while just barely passing legal standards. They never be maintained or inspected. And there’s no way they support my 6’5" 300lbs ass as my frozen corps plummets to the earth below.

        • strcrssd
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          FAA is one of the better government agencies. In the US, they’d have to be tested and be shown to work on a regular basis in the same way that the emergency rafts and oxygen candles are tested.

  • @HAL_9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    201 year ago

    That question got me thinking: In which major disaster would there have been time to get people off board and deploy parachutes? Any major disaster I can think of happened so fast or unbeknownst to anyone on board, or in unfavorable conditions for parachutes, i.e. takeoff or landing.

    The only one coming to mind is the Gimli glider and that turned out fine.

    • Nomecks
      link
      fedilink
      -51 year ago

      There’s been tons of slow moving air disasters where there would have been time to suit up and jump from a safe altitude. Lots of electrical fires, jammed cables and shoddy repairs over the years.

  • @viralJ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    161 year ago

    How do you envisage it working in practice? If a plane had a disaster that will make it crash in a matter of minutes, people wouldn’t form an orderly line to jump out with their parachutes. And if the malfunction is not making the plane crash in the next 5 minutes, the plane can probably land safely at the nearest airport.

  • theodewere
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    “okay everyone, stand up calmly and put on your parachute while the plane falls out of the sky… once everyone is done with that, and all parachutes are secure, we will begin an orderly de-boarding… thank you for your attention - while the plane falls out of the sky for some reason…”

    • @Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      People can barely get off or on a stationary plane in an orderly fashion.

      There would be people climbing over one another and seats, people getting trampled, Stooging at the doors, people getting knocked out of the door without a parachute, and people falling to their death because they didn’t put the parachute on right or they exceeded the weight limits of the equipment due to their American figure.

    • Sips'OP
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Right, the question definitely sounds incredible silly when you put it like that haha, but fair point. Was more thinking it would be better that some survived than none, but indeed: on a full passanger airplane this would probably never work out.

      • theodewere
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        maybe you could pack a chute inside each seat, and then just dump all the seats out with everyone still in them… chutes deploy automatically… like a pilot’s seat in a jet fighter, but less complicated…

  • @pound_heap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    81 year ago

    I’ve seen a concept of an airplane that can eject sections of it’s hull, each equipped with a large parachute. This can solve the problem of “how to put parachutes on each passenger including kids, disabled and panicked and teach them how to use it”. Also it doesn’t require the plane to maintain certain height, speed or angle for parachuting.

    But of course it will add extra weight to carry, because not only they’ll need to install big parachutes, but also ejection system and something to seal off ejectable sections.

    • Hildegarde
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      It works for the Cirrus because that plane is tiny. A parachute big enough to safely land a commercial jet is not feasible.

      If a commercial plane has a failure, say an engine failure as in the news story, the pilots with fly the plane with the other engine to a safe landing.

      If the Cirrus has an engine failure it becomes a glider. If there’s no airports nearby you’ll have to ditch in a field somewhere. There is a lot less redundancy in general aviation.

      If you’re a new pilot buying your first plane, having a parachute on the plane is a nice feature.

  • @SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Weight. Chutes are heavy and means more fuel use and less range with less people. Which means more flights, which means more planes, crew, maintenance, parts, landing fees etc.

    It would be easier to strap a large parachute to the plane which has been done on small aircraft

    • swiftcasty
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      In other words (and more neutrally), there have not been any randomized controlled trials of parachute intervention, so we do not have data to say whether they would work or not.

      • teft
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Imagine being part of that experiment.

        “Here’s your parachute. Hope you aren’t part of the control group!”

    • @kryptonite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      It is a truth universally acknowledged that a medical intervention justified by observational data must be in want of verification through a randomised controlled trial.

      This was a great read. Thanks.

  • @LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    I’m a licensed skydiver and the planes we jump out of go about 80 mph. Passenger airplanes go MUCH faster and higher than that and the wind speed alone would rip yer skin off.

    also skydiving isn’t exactly something that typical commercial airline passengers would ever be interested in doing. If you’re not properly trained, you’re gonna have a bad time.

  • @wildcardology@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    You’re not counting children and babies, how will they go out? and besides all the passengers will have to be wearing the parachutes during the flight.