The detachable cabin (includes parachute)
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.
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.
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 . . .
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 . . .
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EICK
Age: 47
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Or maybe it would be safer to eject them muppets and let the positive stability have a go at saving those on board?
"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?!
but what would activate the capsule if pilots don't recognize the stall?!
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? 
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
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
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'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...
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.
Or maybe it would be safer to eject them muppets and let the positive stability have a go at saving those on board?
Or maybe it would be safer to eject them muppets and let the positive stability have a go at saving those on board?
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!?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"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
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 ..
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 02:46.
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.
Acceleration may be less during takeoff than during landing, but some aircraft pitch up to some very uncomfortable angles during initial climb.
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?
Or maybe it would be safer to eject them muppets and let the positive stability have a go at saving those on board?
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.
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.
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.
(resists temptation to use head-banging emoticon)