August 16, 2005

• Not feasible -- the parachutes would be have to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too big to safely land, say, 15,000lbs (= 150lbs x 100 passengers). You can't control everything; sometimes you just have to let go.
• Even if they had individual ejector seats... Well, last time I was on a plane, someone did a "hey what does this button do?" and made his oxygen mask come down. Which meant they had to call a mechanic. Which meant we were three hours late leaving O'Hare. But, um, that wouldn't be good. So it would have to be crew-controlled, and that assumes the crew has time and the proper training to press the button...but isn't the passenger compartment most of the airplane? What's left if you eject it?
• They do have something similar for small planes (i.e. piper cub) but yeah not feasable for physical and $$ reasons. My favorite planes are those that only go about 10 yrds above the air and still get you there in the same time. Oh yeah - Maglev trains. Right.
• Within the extremely slim chance that there's a serious problem with the airplane, there's another extremely thin chance that the plane will have enough altitude to make parachutes feasible. Most accidents occur at takeoff or landing, which is just too close to the ground to allow any escape method to work.
• Some time ago I saw a thing on parachutes for the whole damn airplane. They only had them for smaller models, of course, but I think they were looking into the feasibility of using them for larger models. Struck me as a beautifully simple idea.
• I'm scared to fly (I was in a near-miss incident between Houston and London once), but I have to do it anyway. I have to admit that I have this theory that it's safer to fly right after a big crash. So when I saw the second crash happened in two days, there was an overwhelming sense of "oh, crap," because there goes that theory out the window.
• It's a simple case of Risk Analysis. The value of the loss times the likelihood of occurrence is your "exposure" to that risk. If you have a tree in the back yard that's got a 1/10 chance in a decade of falling into your house and causing $20,000 in damage, your exposure in that decade is $2000. If it costs more than $2000 to mitigate that risk (moving/removing the tree or other intervention), it's not worthwhile to do it. That said, Imagine each airplane has these "ditching" countermeasures: considering that it is not uncommon to have ZERO major commercial jet crashes in any calendar year (usually 1-5, worldwide), I'll set the likelihood of an accident on any single plane in a year that could be mitigated by your countermeasures at a very generous 1 in 10 million. It's probably more like 1 in 100 million, but I'll give you 10 million. For each plane, the countermeasures would increase the cost probably by no less than $50 million (for a new plane), and this does not include research/development (almost certainly in the many billions, can you imagine redesigning an airframe to do what you're describing?) and retrofitting costs for existing fleets, let's say a retrofit is $100M per jet. In addition, I'm certain that these countermeasures would decrease the capacity of jets by at least 10%, and more likely 25%. So, if there are a hypothetical 100,000 jets in current worldwide fleets, and airlines are buying 1000 per year, your extra cost for these designs would be, roughly, $10B. Let's say each jet that crashes kills a total of 300 per jet. And let's say that each person's lifetime earning potential and intangible value is $5M. (you have to put a value at some level, otherwise why aren't cars big squishy things that go 2mph?) So that's 300people x 5 million per person an exposure of $1.5B per crash. (I'm not counting the cost of recoveries/investigations, ground damage, cost of training/replacement of lost crews and personnel, and the plane itself which has to be replaced) If there is a 1 in 10 million chance per year of having a crash that these countermeasures, your exposure is 1.5B x 1/10,000,000, which works out to an exposure, per flight of $150, versus up to $100M PER JET to add these big countermeasures (and they are very, very big). Also, if you eject the passenger cabin, you have effectively destroyed the airworthiness of the plane as a whole, and are dooming the flight crew to an almost certain death (unless the countermeasures include them as well). I probably overestimated the likelihood of a catastrophic crash, underestimated the cost to retrofit the fleets (and remember, you have to basically redesign the entire airplane from the ground up to do these things), underestimated the decrease in passenger capacity to accommodate these things, did not take into account that these countermeasures increase weight, which decrease range. I think people will pay a bit more for safer flying. But with these things in place, I would wager that the cost to operate, maintain, refuel, and increased price due to decreased capacity would make the prices probably go up by a factor of 10. And I'm probably underestimating THAT as well. Would you pay $5,000 for a round-trip flight (in coach) from JFK to LAX for a 75% chance of being unhurt should your 1 in 10 million chance come up of catastrophic failure? I can't think of many people who would, or could even afford that.
• Heh, I too had a terrible bout with "turbulence" during a recent international flight. Halfway over the Atlantic, and without any warning, the 747 violently lurched up, down, and then sideways (enough so that many passengers were tossed from their seats). I'll never forget the sound of the engines screaming as the plane made a very rapid ascent (the angle was quite remarkable for anything I've ever experienced on a commerical airliner). All I could do was sit in the seat, clutching the armrest and think, "This is it, this baby is going down in the middle of the ocean!!" It seemed we had encountered an unexpected storm system (a VERY large system as it turned out). Two hours of sustained turbulence. Oh, I forgot to mention, on the initial leg of the flight to Singapore - the moment the wheels touched down, the right wing erupted in a shower of brillant sparks. We de-boared then-and-there. Makes me wonder the result if that happened in mid-air? Needless to say, I was kissing the ground once the 24-hour journey ended. I found it hard to board a plane on my next flight! Alas, I refuse to give in to fear. Still, a nice thought to imagine - ejectable passenger seats! Heh. However, as others have pointed out, I think the feasibility/cost would most likely prevent such a "perk." Ah, I think it also touches on issues of Control. When we, as drivers, are in control, fear is where? But as soon as we are buckled in that plane, with no option of "taking the wheel" as it were, we lose a sense of control - and perhaps this gives rise to certain fears?
• >I refuse to give in to fear. I refuse to refuse to give in to fear. I refuse to give in to reason. Trains are a perfectly pleasnat way to travel.
• I fly by dirigible. It takes longer, but you can get a LOT drunker.
• Trains are a perfectly pleasnat way to travel Yes, but can you tell me of one that will go international - say from the US to SE Asia?
• Europe is full of international trains.
• Why don't they make the whole plane ejectable? Thanks folks, I'm here all week!
• It sounds like the funnest thing. This just might save the airline industry from collapseing. The Mystery Flight, you can be ejected at anytime from the plane.WOO HOO, All you have to survive is a bag of peanuts, a puke bag and cope of Leisurely Travel magazine.
• I say dispense with the planes altogether- what we need are big people-launching cannons, and parachutes for everybody.
• Yeah... you guys are probably right... considering the chances of a crash happening coupled with the cost of implementing something like this, it looks like it'd just be completely cost inefficient. Still, I wish I could see and go places (I have high blood pressure, so in this sense my fears COULD kill me, albeit there's likely only a .5% chance that simply I could die of fright, but I ain't takin' that gamble)
• I think, perhaps, after reading those reports of the Cyprus-Greece crash, that you would have to pressurize each separate compartment in which people were to be ejected Speculating here -- Maybe need to warm the interior as well? in some way) so the passengers don't suffer from frostbite. (Cold when seven or eight miles abouve the earth, and descending relatively slowly by parachute?) And not sure I want to be in an aircraft in storm turbulence if it is designed to come apart very easily.
• It's cool; I've played enough San Andreas to know exactly what to do. Wait till the plane's about four feet above the ground, and jump out the door. You'll land on your feet and you get a free parachute about it.
• i've long been in favor of a complete overhaul of international jets, somewhat along the lines of the space shuttle thing used in the fifth element. here's how it works: you check in and are given a strong sedative of your choice. your inert body is placed in a pressurized capsule that has its own oxygen supply and loaded along with other capsules onto the plane. at your destination, you're given a small adrenalin shot and can proceed to baggage claim. this avoids many unpleasant aspects of flying: boredom, shoulder-space wars with complete strangers, chatty but insane neigbors, bad food, sleeplessness, bad movies, leg cramps, smelly-footed neighbors, etc. to pay for the capsules, the airlines could rip out the interior of the cabin (seats, video screens, cabin baggage racks, bad carpet, and so on). moreover, stacking the capsules should make it possible to increase the passenger capacity. to increase the safety of the proposed system, each capsule could be fitted with parachutes, to be activated if a general eject system is initiated. it should also be possible to add a small box of emergency supplies, in case of ejection over water/desert.
• Frostbitten, stuporously drugged, and then drowned or dumped in a desert to roast! This willna do! /imagines two hundred odd sets of parachute cords entangling in midair, screams till he wakes up
• Eh, I could almost sign up for roryk's vision. My fear of flying has gotten to the point where I've considered asking a doctor for a mild sedative (almost being hit by a lear jet over New England will do that to a girl, I guess -- see above re: near miss incident). I can't stop flying, I live too far away from my family to do that, but the yoga breathing isn't curbing my anxiety enough any more.
• Funny how many people are afraid of flying. But now what about cruise ships? Are there folks who are as scared of traveling on the water? I would guess not(?). But on a ship you have the same loss of control as in flying plus the chance of a slow gurgling death by drowning if something goes wrong (as opposed to a fast death by squishing/exploding on a plane). I.e. could it be that fewer people are afraid of sailing because they understand the (obvious) technology of floating ships? Whereas with flying, it's a thousand ton metal thing with wings, how the f*ck does it work?
• I'm terrified of flying and won't do it anymore, so I think I could probably get down with roryk's vision. The relative safety/unsafety of planes makes me put on my tin foil hat, anyway: I think they could make them much, much safer but they won't, because of cost. For example: George Carlin (scroll down to #40) had it right. And debaser's idea could work too, or any other number of ideas. Meanwhile, if they'd bring back dirigibles, I would fly in them. I like them.
• Story.. odd that you mention that. I would have absolutely zero issue with going on a cruise. (Especially now that the mythbusters have debunked that whole "sucked down by the sinking ship" myth). I have a equal understanding of the laws of physics concerning both, but while I know how to swim and tread water, I haven't gotten the whole "flying" thing down yet.... :)
• with flying, it's a thousand ton metal thing with wings, how the f*ck does it work? I think this probably has something to do with it. Also, travel by boat seems to be more "natural" than flying. By that I mean, e.g., Give "primitive" man a piece of wood that provides enough buoyancy, and he can navigate a body of water. But flying through the air? That's a giant leap in ability... If I was given a choice of death by crashing airplane or sinking ship - I would most definitely choose the plane! On preview: if they'd bring back dirigibles, I would fly in them Now imagine that dirigible encountering a nice strong turbulant system... Nope, I wouldn't wanna be in that thing! :)
• I bought a ticket on a zepplin, and it wasn't cheap. I had to borrow money from so many people that now I owe the humanity.
• Wooh, tough crowd today :(
• StoreyBored: I'm pmore afraid of sailing than of flying, not least because I did some reading about the employment and maintenance practises in the maritime industry once flags of convenience became the in thing. *shudders* I don't get why people worry about flying when they drive without the same paranoia. Maybe half a dozen people die in New Zealand from plane crashes a year. Over 400 die on the roads.
• Without Ejecting, Boyfriend Goes Down in Flames!