Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

The detachable cabin (includes parachute)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

The detachable cabin (includes parachute)

Old 18th Jan 2016, 19:11
  #21 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,591
Received 56 Likes on 40 Posts
Hasn't this been tried before?

Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 19:43
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I cannot help but think that you could leave the first class passengers behind and help to improve the world's distribution of wealth.
badgerh is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 19:46
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
foliot-pilot is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 20:08
  #24 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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 . . .
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 21:00
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EICK
Age: 47
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Load of rubbish.

Found a more apt version of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkyiVNbQYYY
Maxan_Murphy is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 21:12
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Or maybe it would be safer to eject them muppets and let the positive stability have a go at saving those on board?
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 21:25
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 341
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
"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?!
AreOut is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 21:49
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
stalling attitude is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 22:49
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: MIA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
YGBSM

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?
mach2.6 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 23:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Nope
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Pilat is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2016, 23:31
  #31 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,184
Received 41 Likes on 20 Posts
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
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 00:04
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 3,664
Received 15 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by 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...
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.



Originally Posted by 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.

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!?
LlamaFarmer is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 00:33
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Smilin_Ed
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
Rhino power is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 00:40
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Dairyground is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 02:38
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 121'10.20"N - 10356'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ..
ecureilx is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 03:18
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?

Last edited by _Phoenix; 19th Jan 2016 at 03:46.
_Phoenix is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 03:27
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
NSEU is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 11:06
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airplanes fly nose-up ...
Now that would encourage the punters to keep their seat belts fastened.
ExXB is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 11:24
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
Wageslave is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2016, 11:31
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Malvern, UK
Posts: 424
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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)
Dont Hang Up is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.