| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2005 01:33:45 PM |
| Object: |
Plane Crash in Sicily |
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 03:04:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Airbags in buses and trains? Yeah, right - the govenernment will act
upon its own Official Truth. Ha!
It's been considered. It's an awful engineering idea. If a plane
screws up people die. This is strong motivation not to screw up.
There is always enough fuel remaining to get you to the crash site. A
Piper Cherokee is the safest plane ever made - just barely large
enough to kill you.
What about the Cessna the crashed in a Polish cemetary? More than 300
bodies have been recovered and they are still digging.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
08 Aug 2005 06:33:09 AM |
|
|
In message <42F66956.B7269D10@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes
diners@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Airbags in buses and trains? Yeah, right - the govenernment will act
upon its own Official Truth. Ha!
It's been considered. It's an awful engineering idea. If a plane
screws up people die. This is strong motivation not to screw up.
There is always enough fuel remaining to get you to the crash site.
No, that's what the second engine is for.
A
Piper Cherokee is the safest plane ever made - just barely large
enough to kill you.
Just as well, as it's one of the hardest to get out of. Only one door,
and it's not on the pilot's side.
What about the Cessna the crashed in a Polish cemetary? More than 300
bodies have been recovered and they are still digging.
Ho ho ho.
Back to the topic - the OP doesn't seems to have considered how the
terminal velocity in the parachute case compares with the vertical
velocity component of a gliding airliner.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 01:58:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
The trick is knowing when to deploy the chuts!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 05:44:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
When would it be useful?
A) If the plane blew up in mid air, it would not be useful.
B) If the plane underwent partial structural disintegration or loss of
control (e.g. loss of wing or control surfaces) a parachute might be
useful to slow descent.
C) If the plane can limp to an airport, a controlled landing would be
safer.
D) If the plane seemed to be executing a normal take-off or landing
(most dangerous phases of flight), and suddenly crashed, there would be
no utility.
The device would have very limited utility, but would always have to
carried (fuel costs) and maintained.
BTW -- I knew somebody who was on the Columbian passenger jet which
crashed in the woods on LI after it ran out of fuel, because --
apparently -- the pilot didn't shout with quite enough conviction "I
running out of fucking fuel you assholes!" I suppose it just might
have helped them, on the theory that it is better to drop into woods
than fly into them. But, as was said, the trick is knowing when to
deploy it.
Can you get passengers to pay higher ticket prices for it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scismgenie" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 11:15:05 PM |
|
|
First rule:
All clouds have rocks in them.
Second rule:
The length of the runway is shorter on a scale of 1:10 depending on
the severity of your emergency.
Third rule
Know when to hand-off to the Co-pilot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 05:36:52 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Been done and works (mostly) for small single engine planes.
God awfull expensive to design, build and certify for something the
size of an airliner.
Airliners almost never crash because of an engine malfunction since
they have spares. All airliners in the ICAO have to be able to fly
with one engine out.
Airliners almost always crash (ignoring intentional destruction) in
bad weather on approach where they are too low to deploy parachutes
even if the pilot knew he was going to crash, which most don't until
they hit dirt.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Math Freak" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
08 Aug 2005 11:08:45 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:36:52 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Airliners almost always crash (ignoring intentional destruction) in
bad weather on approach where they are too low to deploy parachutes
even if the pilot knew he was going to crash, which most don't until
they hit dirt.
Then land the planes themselves all the time with
chutes. There may be a way to construct the body to
withstand the landing jolt. Almost no casualties, ever.
--
"sad sokhan migoft zAn darde kohan
dar shekAyat ke nagoftam yek sokhan"
- Mowlana
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
09 Aug 2005 01:28:41 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Math Freak <MathFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:36:52 +0000 (UTC),
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Airliners almost always crash (ignoring intentional destruction) in
bad weather on approach where they are too low to deploy parachutes
even if the pilot knew he was going to crash, which most don't until
they hit dirt.
Then land the planes themselves all the time with
chutes. There may be a way to construct the body to
withstand the landing jolt. Almost no casualties, ever.
Now, you don't only require a parachute that can cope with the enormous
shock loads, but one that has to deploy better than 99.9999% reliably.
(The figure I found for crashes amongst large airliners was 0.34/million
flight hours. Assuming flights of average 3 hours, that's 1 flight in a
million crashes)
This is many, many times more safe than current parachutes.
Even neglecting the fact that you need to operate them tens of thousands
of times, or replace them many times.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter B." |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 02:59:48 PM |
|
|
On 7 Aug 2005 11:33:45 -0700, wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Make a fortune.
Design such a plane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 04:36:50 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Walter B. <walterb@castag.net> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2005 11:33:45 -0700, wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Make a fortune.
Design such a plane.
http://www.brsparachutes.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter B." |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 04:59:49 PM |
|
|
On 07 Aug 2005 21:36:50 GMT, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In sci.physics Walter B. <walterb@castag.net> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2005 11:33:45 -0700, wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Make a fortune.
Design such a plane.
http://www.brsparachutes.com/
That's for tiny planes, not for commercial passenger aircraft
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
08 Aug 2005 02:54:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Walter B. <walterb@castag.net> wrote:
On 07 Aug 2005 21:36:50 GMT, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In sci.physics Walter B. <walterb@castag.net> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2005 11:33:45 -0700, wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Make a fortune.
Design such a plane.
http://www.brsparachutes.com/
That's for tiny planes, not for commercial passenger aircraft
I'm sure they'd be simply delighted to supply you with a quote.
However.
The velocity is enormously higher, and the KE is proportionately i
higher too.
The parachute is going to take a fairly substantial portion of the
payload, and may well require structural changes to take the shock
loading.
Of course, this doesn't exactly help for some crashes.
If your aircraft breaks apart in mid-flight, you're pretty much screwed,
unless you happen to be thrown clear and be wearing a chute.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 11:00:11 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Walter B
<walterb@castag.net>
wrote
on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:59:49 +0100
<211df1hfsegk5touitobdb9vsokrrjqh2e@4ax.com>:
On 07 Aug 2005 21:36:50 GMT, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In sci.physics Walter B. <walterb@castag.net> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2005 11:33:45 -0700, wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Make a fortune.
Design such a plane.
http://www.brsparachutes.com/
That's for tiny planes, not for commercial passenger aircraft
There's also the square-cube issue. Commercial aircraft
would require rather larger chutes (relative to the
aircraft size). Also, the weight [*] of the fabric is
a consideration; it's more profitable for an airplane to
use that weight to carry passengers or freight, though it
may depend on insurance costs.
[*] In this case, weight is the accurate term, though it doesn't
matter that much; commercial aircraft only go up to 15 km
or so at most.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Math Freak" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
08 Aug 2005 11:15:06 AM |
|
|
On 07 Aug 2005 21:36:50 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.physics Walter B. <walterb@castag.net> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2005 11:33:45 -0700, wrote:
Why can't a plane have emergency 4-5 parachutes packed in its roof?
This can be opened for safe landing, instead of worse landing, in case
of malfunctioning in engine.
Make a fortune.
Design such a plane.
http://www.brsparachutes.com/
Speaking of the Devil! I just "proposed" this in
another reply.
Several chutes holding a large passenger plane from
various points could perhaps land it safely,
semi-vertically, as a matter of routine, not emergency
action.
--
"sibi ke soheylash nazanad rang nadArad
ta'lime mo'allem be kasi nang nadArad"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scismgenie" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
07 Aug 2005 11:06:58 PM |
|
|
Such a design exists, the Small aircraft emergency descentr device is
just that a Parachute for a plane. as is a Drogue Chute used to slow a
landing plane. both ideas were long ago patented.
Practicality however causes problems, Such a chute system would have to
be tuned to the weight of the aircraft to be "controlable" and yet
positive control is best maintained while still using the wings and
other control surfaces as designed.
Training Pilots to rely on a fully hands-off system would be tough too,
there was and still is a lot of pilts who ride ejection sat equipped
aircvraft into the ground, because their training tells them they can
regain control. Even when an outside observer can plainly see when
things are beyond recovery, it is VERY subjective.
Such a system would also present the problem of directional control,
and uncontrolled chute landings, due to wind, or chute malfunctions,
can be very hard.
INstallation of Drag Chutes (Drogues) and air speed brakes, reverse
thrusters, anti-lock Brakes and computer controlled decelration
devices are all possibiliies, and many are being put in place.
Survivability in an air crash has to deal with enormous deceleration
(G) forces, sudden changes in direction (on three axis), and the
concerns of aircraft break-up, fuel exposure, fire and just plain
total destruction of the aircraft.
Some sound considerations are not acceptable toi the public, things
like backwards facing seats, No carry on luggage, no Overhead bins,
things that could and do become flying scrapnel in an aircrash.
Future incorporation of airbags in commercial jets has been considered
as well, and may actually already be used in some places ( I haven't
flown recently).
A lot of the safety devices add a lot of dead weight to an airframe,
and costs in fuel and maintenence would be higher, so it becomes an
issue of profit vs. safety.
Still the air transportation industry has a VERY safe record per
capita. The ODDS are pretty small that you will be on the one plane
that has an accident.
Jeff Scism
(Former Aircrew Life Support supervisor, USAF)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
16 Aug 2005 04:22:46 PM |
|
|
Two more crashes have happened. We can't just get rid off by saying it
is not financially feasible by airliners.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
16 Aug 2005 04:55:40 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics wrote:
Two more crashes have happened. We can't just get rid off by saying it
is not financially feasible by airliners.
Re the Greek crash:
If the crew is disabled and the airplane is on autopilot at cruise,
who is going to slow down the airplane and deploy the parachute?
If someone was around to do that, it would be easier and safer to just
decend to a lower altitude and land at the first airport.
Re the Venezuela crash:
No reported cause as yet other than a preliminary report of all engines
failing which doesn't happen unless the pilot does something incredibly
dumb or the fuel is total crap, in either case one would be better served
spending the money on pilot training or better fuel filters.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
16 Aug 2005 10:06:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics wrote:
Two more crashes have happened. We can't just get rid off by saying it
is not financially feasible by airliners.
Re the Greek crash:
If the crew is disabled and the airplane is on autopilot at cruise,
who is going to slow down the airplane and deploy the parachute?
If someone was around to do that, it would be easier and safer to just
decend to a lower altitude and land at the first airport.
Hearing about the Greek crash, and an earlier crash involving a Lear
Jet that flew long distances on autopilot with an unconscious crew, has
led me to brainstorm solutions. Now remember, "brainstorming" is a
completely unedited stream of consciousness kind of thing, so no making
fun ;-)...
Have very large aircraft with underslung claws which can gently dock
with and grab aircraft in flight, get near an airport, wait for the
unpiloted crafts fuel to run out, then make at least a semi-controlled
assisted landing, releasing the assisted craft at the last moment to
slide accross the runway and disintegrate, gear up....
Ok, never mind: as above, but include an extensible in flight stearable
mantube, which clamps over the stricken aircrafts hatches: replacement
pilots climb down tube, open hatches from outside, close up; helper
craft disengages, emergency pilots take over.
As above, but emergency pilots arive in compact craft which parallels
course of stricken plane, latches onto fuselage like some kind of
sucker fish: rescue personal then cut through fuselage, enter stricken
aircraft and pilot to ground, leaving rescue craft attached.
As two above, but large autonomous controlled descent module is
attached to stricken craft in flight, waits for fuel to run out,
controls descent for most gentle crash on suitable real estate
possible, using combination of thrust devices and parachutes.
Ok, scratch all the in flight docking heroics: equip all commercial
aircraft with external fly-by-remote technology, have standby pilots
near all major airports trained to land craft by remote. Of course
very careful thought is required for balance of security and inabilty
of ill-intentioned individuals to seize control of manned aircraft, vs.
the ability to take control of aircraft whose crews were incapacitated.
Yeah... you laugh. I'd be will to bet -- though I have no idea how the
bet could be abjuticated -- that the most bizarre of my ideas could
actually be technically implimented given sufficient funding. I'm not
saying it would be the best use of the funding, just that they could be
implemented...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
16 Aug 2005 11:13:42 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Edward Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics wrote:
Two more crashes have happened. We can't just get rid off by saying it
is not financially feasible by airliners.
Re the Greek crash:
If the crew is disabled and the airplane is on autopilot at cruise,
who is going to slow down the airplane and deploy the parachute?
If someone was around to do that, it would be easier and safer to just
decend to a lower altitude and land at the first airport.
Hearing about the Greek crash, and an earlier crash involving a Lear
Jet that flew long distances on autopilot with an unconscious crew, has
led me to brainstorm solutions. Now remember, "brainstorming" is a
completely unedited stream of consciousness kind of thing, so no making
fun ;-)...
Have very large aircraft with underslung claws which can gently dock
with and grab aircraft in flight, get near an airport, wait for the
unpiloted crafts fuel to run out, then make at least a semi-controlled
assisted landing, releasing the assisted craft at the last moment to
slide accross the runway and disintegrate, gear up....
Ok, never mind: as above, but include an extensible in flight stearable
mantube, which clamps over the stricken aircrafts hatches: replacement
pilots climb down tube, open hatches from outside, close up; helper
craft disengages, emergency pilots take over.
As above, but emergency pilots arive in compact craft which parallels
course of stricken plane, latches onto fuselage like some kind of
sucker fish: rescue personal then cut through fuselage, enter stricken
aircraft and pilot to ground, leaving rescue craft attached.
As two above, but large autonomous controlled descent module is
attached to stricken craft in flight, waits for fuel to run out,
controls descent for most gentle crash on suitable real estate
possible, using combination of thrust devices and parachutes.
Ok, scratch all the in flight docking heroics: equip all commercial
aircraft with external fly-by-remote technology, have standby pilots
near all major airports trained to land craft by remote. Of course
very careful thought is required for balance of security and inabilty
of ill-intentioned individuals to seize control of manned aircraft, vs.
the ability to take control of aircraft whose crews were incapacitated.
Yeah... you laugh. I'd be will to bet -- though I have no idea how the
bet could be abjuticated -- that the most bizarre of my ideas could
actually be technically implimented given sufficient funding. I'm not
saying it would be the best use of the funding, just that they could be
implemented...
Or, make it mandatory that if one of the pilots leaves the cockpit, the
remaining pilot be on oxygen until the other pilot returns just in case
pressurization fails.
Oh, wait, that is the US reg.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
17 Aug 2005 06:12:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Or, make it mandatory that if one of the pilots leaves the cockpit, the
remaining pilot be on oxygen until the other pilot returns just in case
pressurization fails.
Oh, wait, that is the US reg.
No kidding? So what prevents both pilots from passing out if both are
in the cockpit, off oxygen, and neither is fast enough with the mask?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
17 Aug 2005 08:41:49 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Edward Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Or, make it mandatory that if one of the pilots leaves the cockpit, the
remaining pilot be on oxygen until the other pilot returns just in case
pressurization fails.
Oh, wait, that is the US reg.
No kidding? So what prevents both pilots from passing out if both are
in the cockpit, off oxygen, and neither is fast enough with the mask?
Mandatory retirement at 60, two physicals a year, and annual training
requirements.
Even with explosive decompression you have plenty of time to get the
mask on unless you've done something really dumb.
There have been lots of decompression incidents over the years; this is
the only airliner I've heard of that crashed as a direct result of
loss of control due to decompression incapacitating the crew.
The NTSB keeps extensive data on such things. Feel free to search the
data and report back if you find this common.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Plane Crash in Sicily |
16 Aug 2005 10:16:19 PM |
|
|
Just wait for the Global Brain to automatically, cybernetically lock
in, and then, as in the sci-fi story "The Machine Stops", everybody
quits travelling anywhere, Earth becomes a big beehive for humans, and
air travel is a thing of the prehistoric past.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
