The detachable cabin (includes parachute)

[skridlov]

Today is supposed to be the most depressing of the year, at least here in England. So here's some news that may amuse members of the aviation community and other interested parties.
NB most news organisations appear to be carrying the story and it's not April 1st today.
Clearly inspired by the Cirrus product a "Russian inventor" (ahem...) has proposed a parachute-equipped detachable cabin for passenger airliners. Boeing and AB are probably fighting to recruit this genius right now.
Detachable cabin invented to save lives during plane crashes | Travel | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/detachable-cabin-invented-to-save-lives-during-plane-crashes-a6814311.html)

[DeeCee]

It's a great idea. It won't add any weight at all.

[compressor stall]

Just remind me what airliner accidents this concept (should it be able developed) might be useful in?

I can think of just two...

[Capt Fathom]

The ability to eject your passengers could prove quite useful! :E

[stalling attitude]

Do the pilots stay with the stricken remainder and crash or do they run back into the cabin and leave the fuel laden missile to crash wherever it ends up?:ugh:

[LlamaFarmer]

Probably do more harm than good.

What would define its usage, crew judgement?

Does the flight crew stay with the aircraft or get dragged out the back too?

What happens to the CG afterwards, is the aircraft controllable or predictable in any way? Or is it just an unguided, unpredictable missile waiting to crash.

[hoss183]

Change is usually (always) driven by commerce. If passengers will pay more for this, the airlines may adopt it as an excuse to charge more. But there is a much more profitable reason for technology like this, and that is quick turn around of SLF.
I think something like this will happen ... eventually.

Of course one could argue that a simpler technical solution would be to parachute the whole plane down a la Cirrus. But that doesnt satisfy point 2 above.

[fox niner]

Well, since pilots are equipment anyway, I think this idea is brilliant!:E

[dirkdj]

What is new?

https://youtu.be/Ecr7u-Z1Q3Y

[DaveReidUK]

Will be great for the thousands of high-winged airliners out there. :O

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2016/01/15/13/detachable-cabin.JPG

As for the assertion that "a questionnaire conducted by the inventor found that 95% the inquired would be willing to buy a more expensive ticket in order to use such a safety system", I don't believe that for a moment.

[golfyankeesierra]

Mmm, what does this button do?? Ooppss :}

[CHfour]

Brains thought of this concept decades ago when he designed Thunderbird 2 and that was also supersonic!

[meekmok]

So what g forces are the passengers subjected to when the cabin is ejected into the airstream and it starts tumbling end over end?

[Smilin_Ed]

The safety record of ejection capsules is spotty at best:

Date (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/F_111/F-111.htm)

For that, and other reasons, the F111 did not stay in the inventory very long.

[ExXB]

95% of passengers say they would pay more for safety.

99% of passengers will buy the cheapest ticket they can find and will have no idea of what aircraft type they will be flying on. Or is that 99.9%

[tdracer]

Aside from the obvious impracticalities of such a design (I wonder if he's calculated the size of parachutes needed to softly land 50 tons :eek:), how in the world would something like this help during takeoff or landing (when most accidents occur)?

Almost too dumb for words :ugh:

[LlamaFarmer]

"a questionnaire conducted by the inventor found that 95% like to think they would be willing to buy a more expensive ticket in order to use such a safety system, but are actually cheap bastards who expect something for nothing and aren't prepared to pay"

Probably more accurate

[CONSO]

Also the B-1A bomber had an ejection capsule- did not work well one killed
B-1B has seats.
" The first three B-1As featured an escape capsule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_crew_capsule) that ejected the cockpit with all four crew members inside. The fourth B-1A was equipped with a conventional ejection seat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat) for each crew member.[39] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#cite_note-40)

On 29 August 1984, B-1A (AF Ser. No. 74-0159) stalled and crashed while performing minimum control speed tests at low altitude. The crew used the escape capsule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_crew_capsule) to leave the bomber, but the parachutes deployed improperly, causing the capsule to hit nose down. The impact killed the B-1's pilot, Rockwell test pilot Doug Benefield, and seriously injured two other crew members.[160] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#cite_note-Jenkins_p63-161)[161] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#cite_note-162)

[Slow and curious]

The story is obviously a joke.(As has been pointed out by some posters).
The discussion it causes is entertaining.:ok:

[space-shuttle-driver]

In most military transport airplanes, passenger seats are facing backwards. Provides better crash protection, they say. Sounds plausible as you are crushed into your seat on impact, and not thrown with your face into the seat in front of you (and at the same time squashing your baby which is belted to your lap with the oh-so-important-and-safe-babybelts).
I'd assume that 95% of the general public will want to have cheaper tickets to travel on a plane with backwards facing seats. My USD 0,02 or whatever this is worth...

[Pilot DAR]

Hasn't this been tried before?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/7/9/2144978.jpg

[badgerh]

I cannot help but think that you could leave the first class passengers behind and help to improve the world's distribution of wealth.

[foliot-pilot]

I've seen this over the past few days on social media. Two things surprise me:

1. The public's sheer disregard for the engineering/design impossibilities in constructing something like this. People genuinely believe it's the future.

2. The response when someone probes 'what about the pilots?'. Without exception, on every reply, a good few people respond 'F*** the pilots'.

Wow. I bet the passengers of US 1549 weren't thinking of 'f***ing the pilots' as they were about to land on the Hudson.

[G-CPTN]

As an engineer, the difficulties associated with connecting the services (air, electricity, communications etc etc) between the 'aircraft' and the 'capsule' (and sealing the joints) make this an absolute non-starter IMO.

Which manufacturer would attempt to build even one?

Then there's the testing and certification. Even small deviations from an existing design take years of proving before implementation.

It ain't gonna happen . . .

[Maxan_Murphy]

Load of rubbish.:rolleyes:

Found a more apt version of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkyiVNbQYYY

[Sqwak7700]

As silly as it sounds, if accidents like Air Asia and Air France keep happening then sign me up. I'll take my chances with the g-forces and dangers of ejection than relying on the two muppets up front that are unable to recognize and recover a stalled aircraft. :rolleyes:

Or maybe it would be safer to eject them muppets and let the positive stability have a go at saving those on board?

[AreOut]

"As silly as it sounds, if accidents like Air Asia and Air France keep happening then sign me up. I'll take my chances with the g-forces and dangers of ejection than relying on the two muppets up front that are unable to recognize and recover a stalled aircraft."

but what would activate the capsule if pilots don't recognize the stall?!

[stalling attitude]

From the picture it looks like it detaches from aft of the forward toilet. That'll be an interesting surprise when you open the toilet door after you've finished.:}

[mach2.6]

Yeah, to preclude the pilots inability to recognize an imminent pre-crash flight condition, then the "eject" button should be mounted somewhere in the pax compartment, say near the "flush" button in the lav. That way, whoever felt a little "unsafe" or "unsure" or "nervous" amongst the slf could initiate the eject sequence. Better safe than sorry, right? :ugh:

[Pilat]

This little GEM has been a great Social experiment.

A bit like Chemtrails really... if it's on the Internet, it'll gain a following :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that I've had four specific requests on social media to comment on this, and today a newspaper asked me for 700 words on it.

All seem to accept that "it's rather silly" is a legitimate argument for me not getting deeply involved, thankfully !

30 seconds thinking about the difference in shape with varying cabin loading are enough to bin it, before you get onto parachute snatch loads, physical damage locking it in, mechanisms for release, extra structural mas, tamper-proofing, power/hydraulic/liquid/data carry-thoughs, minimum safe operating heights....

G

[LlamaFarmer]

In most military transport airplanes, passenger seats are facing backwards. Provides better crash protection, they say. Sounds plausible as you are crushed into your seat on impact, and not thrown with your face into the seat in front of you (and at the same time squashing your baby which is belted to your lap with the oh-so-important-and-safe-babybelts).
I'd assume that 95% of the general public will want to have cheaper tickets to travel on a plane with backwards facing seats. My USD 0,02 or whatever this is worth...

I never understood why airliners don't have more rear-facing seats, particularly in economy. It's only usually in business/first you find them, and thats to optimise the space each passenger has while minimising the aircraft space each seat takes up.

Deceleration after landing (or during an RTO) is usually much greater than acceleration during take-off, so more comfortable to be facing backwards for landing than forwards. Once airborne it doesn't really make a difference, I'm not sure anyone would be able to tell which way they were travelling.



As silly as it sounds, if accidents like Air Asia and Air France keep happening then sign me up. I'll take my chances with the g-forces and dangers of ejection than relying on the two muppets up front that are unable to recognize and recover a stalled aircraft. :rolleyes:

Or maybe it would be safer to eject them muppets and let the positive stability have a go at saving those on board?

But who initiates ejection.
And at what point.


If it's automated, how much warning might flight crew have to secure themselves in the capsule/cabin. If it's pilot-initiated, again how much time might they have to make themselves safe from hitting the button to it getting jettisoned.

If it's automated, what if it happens spuriously? Or what if people aren't strapped in, could cause serious or fatal injuries.

What if crew accidentally jettison the cabin, or do so as a precaution but actually wasn't necessary.



I've seen how pissed management get when you divert a plane any they think it was unnecessary, how incandescent with rage will they get if you lose a whole aircraft!?

[Rhino power]

The safety record of ejection capsules is spotty at best:
For that, and other reasons, the F111 did not stay in the inventory very long.

The F-111 was in the USAF inventory for 31 years, and you consider that not 'very long'?

-RP

[Dairyground]

I never understood why airliners don't have more rear-facing seats, particularly in economy. It's only usually in business/first you find them, and thats to optimise the space each passenger has while minimising the aircraft space each seat takes up.

Deceleration after landing (or during an RTO) is usually much greater than acceleration during take-off, so more comfortable to be facing backwards for landing than forwards. Once airborne it doesn't really make a difference, I'm not sure anyone would be able to tell which way they were travelling.



I remember when BEA had some rear-facing seats in the Trident 2. You certainly knew which way you were facing during the initial climb, as the seat belt was the only thing stopping you sliding off your seat into the back of the one you were facing. Quite uncomfortable.

Although the detachable passenger cabin may not be acceptable, the concept might work in a freighter as a solution to in-flight cargo fires. Dump the cargo, re-trim, and hope there was nothing significant on the ground below.

[ecureilx]

Yeah, to preclude the pilots inability to recognize an imminent pre-crash flight condition, then the "eject" button should be mounted somewhere in the pax compartment, say near the "flush" button in the lav. That way, whoever felt a little "unsafe" or "unsure" or "nervous" amongst the slf could initiate the eject sequence. Better safe than sorry, right

Or have a voting system, where the pax press a button, and if the majority feels the pilots are no good, Eject !!!!

And for the pilots up front, in Good Old Fashion Sign of Valour, they will go down with the ship, navigating the rest of the plane away from Schools, Libraries, Cinemas ... super markets, malls ..

[_Phoenix]

Firstly, re-thinking for better design for emergencies is worthy. I know at least couple of people that will never fly just because of crash phobia. A fully detachable cabin is not a great idea or obviously it requires improvements since the concept shown in video doesn't work for fatigue with two pressurised volumes or considering the wing box stress. I rather go with robust ejectable 0-0 seats, if we remove the useless 9.0g crash requirement, the weight impact could be insignificant. Should I register a patent?

[NSEU]

Deceleration after landing (or during an RTO) is usually much greater than acceleration during take-off, so more comfortable to be facing backwards for landing than forwards. Once airborne it doesn't really make a difference, I'm not sure anyone would be able to tell which way they were travelling.


Airplanes normally fly nose up (takeoff, cruise and for periods during descent and approach) and flat during rollout. With rear-facing seats, won't you spend most of the flight relying on your seatbelt and the curvature of the seat cushion not to slide out of the seat?

Acceleration may be less during takeoff than during landing, but some aircraft pitch up to some very uncomfortable angles during initial climb.

[ExXB]

Airplanes fly nose-up ...

Now that would encourage the punters to keep their seat belts fastened.

[Wageslave]

As silly as it sounds, if accidents like Air Asia and Air France keep happening then sign me up. I'll take my chances with the g-forces and dangers of ejection than relying on the two muppets up front that are unable to recognize and recover a stalled aircraft. :rolleyes:

Or maybe it would be safer to eject them muppets and let the positive stability have a go at saving those on board?

Pot. Kettle.

How can anyone take your fatuous remarks seriously if you can't even spell your own moniker correctly?

Muppet indeed. Stick to the Beano please.

[Dont Hang Up]

I've seen this over the past few days on social media. Two things surprise me:

1. The public's sheer disregard for the engineering/design impossibilities in constructing something like this. People genuinely believe it's the future.

2. The response when someone probes 'what about the pilots?'. Without exception, on every reply, a good few people respond 'F*** the pilots'.

Wow. I bet the passengers of US 1549 weren't thinking of 'f***ing the pilots' as they were about to land on the Hudson.

Neither of these surprise me as much as the risk ignorance that would lead people to believe that this is a major safety benefit whilst one of the simplest improvements in surviveability, namely backward facing seats, is considered a step too far!

(resists temptation to use head-banging emoticon)

[Sqwak7700]

Muppet indeed. Stick to the Beano please.

Hey genius, some names are already taken. Which means you have to creatively spell them differently.

And I guess you missed the main point of my post, which was humor.

Boy, I bet you are a hoot at parties.

[PDR1]

<And I guess you missed the main point of my post, which was humor.>

I presume you meant "humour" - do let me knbow when you get to the funny bit, and then you'll be awarded one of these:

https://d3vjvsn2tynjug.cloudfront.net/v2/w_450,h_450/https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Ftanga-images%2Fes483swjk8zp.png

PDR

[Sqwak7700]

I presume you meant "humour" - do let me knbow when you get to the funny bit, and then you'll be awarded one of these:

Wow, another "life of the party" type. Here is me letting you knbow:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Maybe you don't travel much?:}:}:}

[PDR1]

<Maybe you don't travel much?>

Me? Of course not - I'm an aeronautical engineer so I understand how these machines were designed and built. Why would I risk flying in them? Just how stupid do you think I am?? [rhetorical]

Also being an English Gentleman I have servants to do my travelling for me, like all proper people.

PDR

[sandiego89]

Compressor Stall: Just remind me what airliner accidents this concept (should it be able developed) might be useful in?

I can think of just two

For discussions sake I can think of more. Ignoring the practicalities of such a system, a black and yellow pull handle might have been useful on:

Swissair MD-11- smoke, fire, crash
DC-10, Chicago, engine separation (depending on altitude/attitude restrictions of the hypothetical system)
JAL 747- bulkhead failure
Alaska Airlines- jackscrew failure
United DC-10-Sioux City, Total hydraulic loss
Concorde- (maybe- again depending on the system)
Aeromexico DC-9, midair Los Angeles- lost horizontal stabilizer
South African 747- fire in hold
Valuejet, Everglades USA- fire in hold
Avianca 707? - fuel starvation Long Island
Dominican Republic? 757? Taped over airspeed sensors, loss of control
A-300, 2001, vertical stab departs aircraft.
Air France 447- assuming someone knew what was going on in time :(
AirAsia, 2014- high speed stall?
Tranasia ATR- engine failure, wrong engine pulled back.

I did not include shootdowns, highjackings, intentionals, as we do not know the full picture or extent of the damage.

Quite a few more breakups where a system may/may not have helped depending on the damage, multiple losses after after multiple go-arounds in bad weather (would they pull the handle instead of the third etc. blind approach??) and many more from more obscure airlines/Eastern Block- the hypothetical list could likely be expanded quite a bit.