How come the airplane companies don't make an airplane, that will automatically remove the tail...

How come the airplane companies don't make an airplane, that will automatically remove the tail, wings and nose of a plane with a controlled explosion. And after that shoot a parachute from the back of the plane so that no one is killed during the plain malfunction? Is that really that complicated to do?

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20070928000018/http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/283
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2.htm
newsweek.com/celebratory-gunfire-new-years-eve-los-angeles-410598
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yep
It has been tried.
not pratical
not safe
cost effective but for loss of customer space

Why it's not practical?
How come it's not safe to survive the accident?
Why is 10 more passengers more important than for the rest to be alive in case of an accident?

Because fuck you. That's why.

I think it's probably cheaper just to make better "normal" safety precautions like redundant systems, etc. Plus, airline safety is already pretty high, statistically.

I think they might be too high up and travelling too fast for parachutes

Meh, waste of money. Everybody who travels by air get down to earth again, one way or the other... It's not like anyone has been stuck up there

Air travel is the safest form of transportation...unless you're a nuclear engineer.

so, what you're saying is, that aircraft should be designed with structural failure points integral to their assembly, which ensures that there is no single-peice wing spar ensuring mechanical integrity, to allow the plane to rapidly disintegrate mid-flight when the single point attachment positions are weakened?

Hrm. Yes. I can really see this being a safe method which couldnt possibly ever have problems, could it?

How come you can't spell plane correctly?
And to answer your question, its because a fully loaded 747 can weigh almost a million pounds (970,000lbs) and a parachute designed for a single human can require up to 220 sqft of fabric.

A controlled explosion on a high speed vehicle dependent on its aerodynamics to not shred itself to pieces and carrying tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel in the belly of the plane (under the passengers) and in the wings which you are going to blow up.

I don't think this would save many lives and would create a further hazard by sending multiple pieces of uncontrolled flaming wrecking to the ground below.

Why dont they just build the entire plane out of the same materials used to make the black box? Those things usually survive the crash unharmed.

I don't think removing the wings, where the jet fuel is, would cost that much. An average
pyrotechnist could do it with some plastic explosive and without damaging the rest of the plane.

>unharmed

These things are in the tail of the aircraft and it is the most survivable place as more frontal impact energy is expended on the front of the plane rather than the rear in the crash. These flight/cockpit voice recorders still get the shit kicked out of them.

Plastic explosives on a high speed presurrized vessel carrying fuel. Yeah, can't foresee any issue with that.

Because they want all of the passengers and crew do die in the event of a crash, so that there's nobody left to sue for injuries.

This is the same uneducated brain dead thinking that causes people to fire weapons in the air on New years and 4th of July.

"What do you mean the bullet comes down somewhere, it can't kill anyone, right??"

This is literally nigger tier intelligence.

KYS

Because you're not an engineer of any kind, and to explain all the reasons why it won't work would last a semester in at least one of them.

If you blew up the nose at 600mph it would probably blow right into the passengers faces.

A plane built like that would be so heavy it would never get off the ground.

But.... the bullet won't kill anyone. Terminal velocity isn't anywhere near fast enough to kill someone. Maybe a slightly painful bump. But that's about it.

But I get what you're trying to say. It's not a couple small chunks of metal falling, it's airplane parts. That in itself makes it a bad idea.

All I'm hearing in this thread is "hur dur no it can not be dun bcs planes and speeds". Fuck you. You're telling me that we could land a fucking 100 tons lunar rocket to a Moon, but we can't make a mechanism for a wings removal and a fucking parachute?? Fuck all yall niggers.

Guess again, many people have been killed by bullets fired into the air.

For skydiving the rule of thumb is one square foot of parachute per pound... I'm 175 pounds and use a 200sq ft chute. It packs into a 2.8 cubic foot bag.

If we're talking even an average size plane that's dumped all of its fuel and has no passengers on board the parachute would need to be 200,000 square feet... By that math the thing would be about 450'x450' - That would take up about 2800 cubic feet of storage. An EMPTY 767 only has about 1800 cubic feet of cargo space in its belly.

If there are passengers and a moderate fuel load it would need to be significantly bigger and require a lot more space to store it.

They can't do it because of the weight of the plane and there is no space to store a chute that big.

A bullet fired into the air can return with speeds ranging from 300 to 700 feet/second, depending on caliber and angle. People have been critically wounded and killed by celebratory gunfire. There's a reason it's illegal in most first world countries.
You're being kind of stupid.

Sheeeiiit

And when a fuel-laden wing from a 747 or an A300 crashes into a residential neighborhood or a school, what then genius?

in progress:

...

You stupid mother fucker. AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A WHOLE FUCKING PLANE LANDS ON A FUCKING SCHOOL OR A RESIDENTAL NEGHBORHOOD? You know what man, just fuck yourself.

Better than like 200 people dying

More people die per trip on airplanes than any other form of transportation.

Not to mention adding 15,000-20,000 pounds worth of parachute to the plane.

What about the pilots

It's a cartoon therefore it must be real

Not to mention the engineering issues of having the nose and wings with break away points from the central fuselage. That introduces a point of weakness if they aren't secured all the way through, which means you'd have to brace it, which means increased weight.

Kek. Pilots can go into the back part of a plane through a door.

Yeah, so let's make sure the debris field and impact area are as large as possible so as to kill as many innocent people who *didn't* knowingly take on the acknowledged risks of air travel that day.

This is what you get when cousins marry desu. This. Right here.

...

Thats retarded. They'd be the only ones to even have control of the plane detaching in the cockpit. Also pilots would not do that. You clearly have no clue about anything.

There were concepts of modular airplanes, where you can detach the passenger cabin in case of emergency. It is impossible with current technology because of:
- weight
- structural integrity
- cost
- slowing down the cabin before touchdown

It would only be helpful in the very limited amount of cases where a properly built aircraft absolutely can't land anymore, yet still controllable enough to deploy the mechanism.
Deploying at full speed would mad forces. The structure would need to be built for it and you can't build passengers for it. So there you have a limit for possible deceleration. But this in turn rules out a lot of cases as non-applicable.
So this system only has a very limited scope of use.
But.
For the structure of the fuselage to withstand these forces it would need to built differently and would gain a whole lot of weight.
But this isn't all. We are adding detatchment points here. Detatchment points that absolutely must not detatch if we don't want them too. This is a hazard. There is always a chance of the plane crashing BECAUSE of this mechanism. The few cases where it actually works would need to outweigh this risk. For that to happen there'd need to be lot of redundancy and over-dimensioning on these parts. And again, this would waste space, cost a load of money and make the plane much heavier.
The parachute obviously also has weight, and so do its attatchment points.
Basically this isn't being done because for it to not LOWER the safety of the plane, way too much of the practicallity would need to be sacrificed.

They should just fill the airplane with lighter than air gas like hydrogen so it floats in the air. Maybe just put the passengers in a separate cabin under the gas filled chamber, and put some fins on the back to steer and some propellers to move it around.

Show me cases where that was specifically the cause of death

You mean automobiles. About 30,000 die every year in vehicle crashes in the USA.
Aircraft accidents kill 0 to 100 or so.
Mistakes by US doctors kill a few hundred thousand yearly.

Why not just encase that bitch in bubblewrap so you know it will survive the crash?

Retard.

>per trip

implementing such safety measures implies huge costs, who cares if some people die? there's billions of us.

Because the size and strength of a parachute that can decelerate a plane moving at 600mph and that weighs in excess of a quarter million pounds would take up the entire passenger cabin, and that, combined with the reinforcement to the airplane required to withstand such deceleration would make the plane too heavy to take off, that's why.

web.archive.org/web/20070928000018/http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/283

It'd be smarter to just keep the cockpit. First of all, the cabin is pressurized. Adding a divide between it and the cockpit would be a pain in the ass, let alone the messy aerodynamics resulting from the lack of the frontend. At speed, this would fuck everythign up. But it looks cooler this way, I guess. And that's all that matters for a CGI-concept anyways.
I'm doubtful the pilots would have a chance to walk back there if the plane is so damaged it absolutely can't land anymore.

this. it would also cost too much for the few lives it might save

kek. would not work. Unless the plane is light and literally a blimp like your picture. so dumb.

So... Basically this:

Pretty much.

Don't even bother OP is a dumbass or probably 12 to not already see this obvious things

I would bet that it costs more to design, build, and maintain a system that allows the fuselage to disengage all other components. Then there's also the potential of catastrophic failure or failure to disengage, on top of parachute deployment failure or collision with the rest of the body once it is jettisoned from the fuselage. Additionally, you have to remember that this airplane is meant to fly long distances. Having its wings and tail be detachable means it is no longer fixed to the fuselage; do you really want a wing breaking off due to turbulence? That's not even considering the fact that you asked for it to be an explosion. Even a pneumatic disengage of components would be immediately disastrous, but you're asking for explosions. Imagine flying with bombs on a commercial aircraft.

You may as well put holes in the plane, because aerodynamics. That's how stupid this is.

You have to be really stupid if you think a bullet fired into the air comes down with less velocity than it was fired.
But here you go, you asshat.
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2.htm

100 people standing could fit into a 5 × 5 space. So no, it's not that impossible at all to make a parachute security system. That whole safe capsule would not weight much at all.

What could possibly go wrong with installing explosives on the structural failure points in an airplane?

Planes are literally lighter than air dummy, how do you think they hang in the sky?

You might be able to fit 100 people into a 5x5 space if you chopped them into little pieces, but that defeats the point.

If it were possible to fit that number of people into such a small place believe me Southwest or Frontier would have found a way to do that for their seating.

lawsuits

you see, it would cost the airline more in liabilities if you survive.
Parachutes didnt' deploy properly, or when they did deploy they injured my back ect ect.

Better to let the plane crash with no survivors. Make payout there has ever been was 40K per person.

Compare that to literally MILLIONS if people survive and sue.

It's a numbers game.

...

Please get sterilized. We can't chance you breeding.

Planes have air in them.

Better to just remove all the passengers from the plane to make room for the safety equipment, meanwhile everyone will be safe on the ground at the airport.

>Planes are literally lighter than air

no they fucking aren't. Are you actually that retarded?

>dummy

Oh clearly you are.

BINGO!

>You have to be really stupid if you think a bullet fired into the air comes down with less velocity than it was fired.

I can't believe people like this are allowed to live. I'd shoot a bullet up into the air to kill you but, we both know that wouldn't be outcome.

Just keep firing, eventually you'll hit him.

Well obviously when you put a bunch of passengers on that weighs down the airplane, which is why they have to use jet engines to get off the ground. Otherwise they are designed to hang in the air like clouds.

newsweek.com/celebratory-gunfire-new-years-eve-los-angeles-410598


I was also on the scene when I was an LEO when another person was killed in this manner, happened in Boyle Heights on Cinco De Mayo many years ago.

You should really try knowing what the fuck you are talking about before you act so smug.

This, and the fact that everything OP suggested is idiotic and would not work and has been thought of.

What the fuck is this 9 year old doing on Sup Forums
stay in school kid.

Everything about this is so retarded, I'm getting a migraine. I don't even get migraines.
My dude, I love that you're interested in safety measures. It's an awesome thing. Your innovation and life-saving attitude are a fucking blessing, probably now more than ever before in history.
But everything about that post is so retarded. Good fucking luck fitting 100 people into 25 square feet. Good fucking luck making all that tonnage of parachute magically weigh nothing. And this, I really mean: good fucking luck making this shit happen.

I think this is the main reason why they don't wan't people to survive and why there's no parachutes inside planes.

They don't hang, they fall forwards.

Which makes them buoyant.

Don't people need air to breathe? Don't people die when they are compacted?

actually kek´d a little

Air isn't lighter than air. Aluminum isn't lighter than air. People are not lighter than air.

No they fly forward because the pilot controls the plane. If they fell forward they would crash.

Yeah like MH370 which is out there floating, or the Air France flight from Brazil that's on the bottom of the ocean or the plane that landed on the Hudson that sank... 500,000 pounds of metal is not bouyant, it will sink.

No. Actually, you can fit a lot more than 100 people inside a 5×5 meter space. You don't believe me? Just fucking google it. UNLESS you're Amerifat. Then, yeah, you could probably fit around 20 of them, considering their average weight of 400 kilo's.

That isn't because they are light, that is because they are aerodynamic which is clearly something you know nothing about you fucking moron. you are so stupid and naive my god.

Clouds weigh like a million pounds, explain how they hang in the sky.

This guy is why warning labels exist.

in a 5×5m space there's enough air for a 100 people to survive more than 30 minutes. Falling of a sky lasts a lot less. Not to mention that there could be little air holes on it.

>what is density
Don't they teach physics in school now? They did when I was in high school.

Flying is falling forwards very fast. No plane flies perfectly horizontal to the Earth's general curvature, and given that the average person would think of a plane flying from the perspective of someone standing stationary on Earth, the craft would accelerate in a number of vectors but not continually sail off forever in those directions.

If you're suggesting that falling forwards means they would need to crash, I ask you how gliders function.

So they can freeze while they suck the oxygen out of the box?

Planes are made of the lightest substance on Earth, aluminum. Plus they weigh passengers and luggage before taking off to make sure they don't weigh the plane down. There should be a way to jettison luggage or even fat passengers if the plane starts to sink, like dropping ballast from a balloon. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

>louds weigh like a million pounds, explain how they hang in the sky.

They don't 'hang' in the sky you cringy 14 year old. They fly and are powered. They glide only because they are aerodynamic (obviously), doesn't mean they wont come down if they're not being pushed by their engines.

I don’t understand how no one has actually given the correct answer to this question.

The reason is because the malfunctions you’re discussing aren’t really a problem. Plane crashes are so rare because we’re really good at building airplanes and training pilots.

Sudden loss of power isn’t a big deal because the plane can still glide a very long distance and land safely at an airfield. Pilots are REALLY good at this.

Even a barely competent pilot only needs two things to land safely in an emergency: an intact airplane body, and functioning wingflaps/control surfaces.

Planes have been built with a lot of redundancy in control surfaces for decades (bc of some crashes in the 70s), so this isn’t really a problem anymore.

Something that destroys the structural integrity of the plane can still be overcome, depending on the extent of damage - but something that destroys the structural integrity will also probably also destroy this parachute system.

So the answer is because it adds a ton of money to cost and a ton of weight, both of which will make flight more expensive. On top of that, it wouldn’t actually fix any problems.

Can you name an airplane crash in the last 25 years that would have been prevented with this?

That's like saying if a ship has a hole in its lower hull, the solution to keeping it afloat is to throw shit overboard.

Gliders are even lighter versions of planes so they tend to rise in the air, only the weight of the pilot keeps them from drifting into space. Besides, planes are too close to the Earth's surface to "follow the curve" lol.

Little holes in a box that needs to be pressurized so people don't die at altitude. Good plan.

Helium is a far more lighter substance on Earth. No one would pay to be jettisoned from a plane in this society.

Don't start that shit. You know the OP is one of those flat Earth tards

...