Flying is the safest way to travel. Knowing this, how can so

>>984945
You don't know if the pilot dedices to bane post irl.

claustrophobia+acrophobia

because if something goes wrong the chances of survival are nil as opposed to shipwrecks or car crashes or low speed biking accidents.

File: 1373173612711.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>984945
>flying is the safest way to travel

>>984949
Statistically it's true. Far more people die in car wrecks and plane wrecks.

Not sure if the statistic holds up if you account for the percentage of people who die out of the total number of people using that method of transportation, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

That said, flying is scary as shit because there are shitloads more things that CAN go wrong, and if they do there's basically nothing you can do about it and you're fucked. Planes don't have parachutes for every passenger.
Your best bet is to hope you crash in water where you have the highest chance of survival.

pne pilot error intentional or otherwise can kill 200 people on board before the plane even hits the ground, whereas a car crash isn't guaranteed to kill you unless you're driving a chinese shitbox or decide to plow your car into a concrete wall with no seatbelt on.

>>984950
Car wrecks THAN plane wrecks*

#YOLO
I LIVE I DIE I LIVE AGAIN

>>984945
I would have thought subways and trains would be one of the safest ways to travel. Some of them just go around in circles in underground tunnels,

>>984954
I think there are some subways or trains in Japan with literally zero crashes ever. All computer controlled.

File: 1466938398977.jpg (291KB, 1060x1600px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1060x1600px

If you live in burgerland your GP probably won't mind prescribing you 2 Xanax if you just tell them you have a fear of flying and you've got a flight coming up.

>>984945
Good question. You may have a phobia of something, but most people can just say fuck it and pull through, because logic always wins.

>>984947
The floor in a plane is as close to your feet as everywhere.

>>984950
>>984954
Safest per travelled kilometre. Trains are the safest per passenger transported.

>>984955
Pretty sure there are airlines without crashes in their history as well.

>>984945
Two words: Allahu Akbar

>>984958
Statistically, that happens a lot more to people on the ground.

>>984945
It isn't the safest. The only thing it's the safest in is distance traveled vs deaths.

Actually a landing is quite dangerous. It's a "controlled crash". Many pilots describe it as such.

Flying through the air is relatively safe. Landings and takeoffs are way more dangerous than other forms of travel.

>>984945
Hurr durr oh i dunno perhaps the reason is that you're 10KM above ground ( or ocean ) in a flying vehicle, backed up by nothing more than a few people and the trust of human engineering.

>>984945
Actually, the safest form of travel is the elevator. Flying is #2.

>>984962
>tfw flying, something humans weren't born to innately do, is safer than walking

>>984945
Because you're a pussy.

>>984962
By definition, an elevator ride does not count as travelling.

op is special snowflake
queer?

>>984950
Would it be at all feasible to begin to provide passengers with parachutes? I've never parachuted before but if it was possible to just strap it on securely and pull one cord to deploy then maybe it's feasible from an operational standpoint, but idk how safe this would be. Probably more of an issue accommodating the chute on the plane and increased fuel usage.

>>984950
Cause more people own cars than fucking planes.

>34 hour flight from Australia to US non-stop
>munchable drugs and phone vidya
>2 window seats to myself

Cloud 9

>>984945
>Flying is the safest way to travel.
It's a bit of a meme though, yes more people die in car crashes, because loads more people drive cards than fly in planes.

If you take into account the accident rate per hour driven/flown I think I read somewhere the accident rate is actualy pretty close.

File: 1448130795850.jpg (88KB, 1648x926px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1648x926px

>>984945
>not shinkansen

>>984951
No because there are several layers of cross checks, a second pilot among others

>>984945
You have no control.

>>984956
nice legs but wouldn't get near her, she looks like she has the "special unique snowflake born in the wrong generation"

File: 1468621118678.png (29KB, 201x226px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 201x226px

>>984967
You forgot
>100s of untrained people all parachuting from a single plane
>a good idea

>>984945
Because these people (you included) are irrational faggots.

>>984951
Sure but the chance that two of professional pilots actually fuck up is much, much, much lower than the chance that some drunk kid in a car will.

>>984957
>The floor in a plane is as close to your feet as everywhere
The floor on a plane has no effect on acrophobia when you're 35,000 feet in the air

>>984950
Flying is the safest mode of travel per mile travelled.
It's the safest per travel too.

>>984951
When a plane goes wrong you're pretty dead, but it happens tens of thousands of times less often than a car going wrong. Also in the air another plane isn't likely to fly into you.
The frequency of air catastrophes is so low that even the much lower survival rates don't matter, since you're much, MUCH more likely to die in a car.

Fun fact: The increase in traffic accidents after 9/11 because people stopped flying killed more people than 9/11 itself

>>984970
>If you take into account the accident rate per hour driven/flown I think I read somewhere the accident rate is actualy pretty close.
It's actually not. Flying is still much safer.
Cars are deathtraps.

>>984975
Well since they're going to crash and die jumping out of the plane with parachutes give better odds. Also there could be basic training on how to use a parachute - it isn't that hard if you're not panicking.

>>984975
I didn't.. if the plane is steady and hostesses are trained to instruct people on the matter and obviously assist them in making the jump then it can't be too bad? The seating and aisle will mean people can't push/rush.. this would surely save lives compared to crashing.

>>984974
Well I doubt she would even consider getting inside a 100mile radius around a /g/entooman.

Safest way to travel is walking. But it's not practical for traveling long distances.

>>984983
>Safest way to travel is walking.
Check again.

>>984975
I'll take my chances with the parachute.

>>984977
Yes, it does. It's about what you see below your feet, not where you actually are.
If you scared of being 10 Km high in the air, it's called aviophobia.

>>984980
>>984981
If it were feasible, they'd do it. Passenger planes travel at 900 Km/h. That's not a speed you can reasonably jump at. Additionally, at least 50% of the passengers on a plane are not in a physical state to jump, because their too young/old or lazy, sedentary fatasses.

>>984980
>>984981
To your first point, resources could be better spent on holding maintenance of the plane to a higher standard and whatnot. Secondly, a situation that arises that would warrant using a parachute isn't one that wouldn't cause panic.

because you're hurtling along at hundreds of miles per hour, thousands of feet in the air, in a pressurized soda can

>>984986
>Passenger planes travel at 900 Km/h.
That's a pretty big problem. But what about after engine failure? If the plane is gliding surely the speed is much lower

>>984989
By the time it slowed down to 500 Km/h without active braking it's so close to ground half the people wouldn't have time to jump any more. And still going to fast.
I don't know at which speed those planes would start stalling, but slowing down isn't really an option other than making the impact softer.

>>984969
>>34 hour flight

Wat

>>984983
Dumbass

>>984986
See, this is the thing. With parachutes you can't guarantee the safety of everyone. In fact almost for sure a lot of people would die. But then the people who know what they are doing have a good chance of survival. It's the whole political correctness thing in action.

File: 1336590413908.png (50KB, 1207x935px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1207x935px

Instead of giving parachutes to all the passengers, how about a massive one for the entire aircraft?

>>984981
usually when a plane crashes it means that something has gone very wrong.
It's not like
>here's the captain speaking, the plane broke so we are going to descend a couple of thousand feet, then slow down and fly straight for a couple of miles, please wear your parachutes and be ready to exit through the emergency door

it's more like
>fuck the engine exploded oh well there goes our wing bye bye
>is that ice? *stalls and dives at hundreds of mph into the ground*
>hmm the pressurizing system is not working, time to pass out and wander in circle until the fuel runs off and we fall out of the sky
>nobody told me there was a hill before the runway, better CFIT

and so on. There's not much time even to think.

If the aircraft is still controllable, there is still a chance to land more or less safely, see the "Miracle on the Hudson"

>>984994
Wouldn't save the plane in over 90% of crashes, so it's not worth the effort and costs.

>>984993
It really isn't. Think about the following: Plane's engines die, and it's about to drop. People jump out at travelling speed, 80% die, 15% are severely injured. 5% make it savely (random numbers there). Pilot then manages to find a landing site and lands the plane with minimal casualties. A lot of people died there for no reason.

People say you won't be able to save lives if you put parachutes on passenger planes. But jesus christ look at how many times ejection seats have saved lives in military jets.

>>984996
Yeah no shit, that's why you fucking wait until the right time to jump. What you said is not an argument for not putting parachutes on planes.

>>984996
>Wouldn't save the plane in over 90% of crashes, so it's not worth the effort and costs.
Why not? What are the main problems in using a parachute(s) to bring down a plane?

>>984997
Fighter pilots are trained for years and ejection seats are fucking expensive. No comparison.

>>984998
What time? How fast do you think you can get 300 people to jump off a plane? You'll need like 15 minutes.

>>984945
Imo it's because you have no direct control of the plane yourself. Maybe working on general trust issues would help. Also learn the basics of flying a airplane. Getting confidence with mannering it yourself is a lot helpful towards the general phobia of flying

>>984998
The right time to jump is well below the stall speed of your typical airliner.

>>984999
Most plane crashes happen during launch or landing. Most fatal plane accidents in mid air result in the destruction of the whole plane (structural failure, explosives, missiles).

>>985003
>explosives, missiles
wat. How often has this happened? Also, if suppose a bird hit or something similar has rendered the plane unflyable but its still gliding, descending and losing speed, you could use the parachutes to bring it down, assuming the vertical travel doesn't hinder its usage.

Ignoring crashes during take off or landing, off course.

>>984999
Of course they are expensive. But they save lives. A lot of lives. And you don't need to be trained to pull a handle and get automatically launched.

>>985002
I don't know how important airspeed is. But people get ejected in supersonic speeds and live so it can't be that bad if you're traveling at 500 km/h.

>>985003
Yeah and a lot of times also you have mechanical failures, you have ice freezing up the control surfaces or internal failures. Locking the plane its trajectory.

>>985005
Ticket prices aren't enough to justify ejection seats, though they'll only need to be used 1/1000 flights though. Also, you need a massive structural change on the entire fuselage if you wanna eject 200-300 people. You need to adapt for people of different shapes and sizes. Too many variables.

Basically, not economical.

>>985005
Those people are strapped in a million dollar seat with their bonedome helmets and flightsuits fastened to said seat.

>>984945
Because humans are incapable of flight. We might be smart and all but try convincing your body that sitting in a metal box shooting through the sky is "safe".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtyq-8fdCsY

appreciate it

>>985007
Yeah, of course, making ejection seats for everyone would be a huge, expensive task. And I think different solutions should be more looked into. But I believe putting a relatively cheep parachute below everyones seat instead of that useless life jacket is the least you can do.

What I don't understand is

Why those niggas don't put cameras on planes? You know, so that the pilots can know what the fuck is going on in their plane without having to leave the cockpit?

Feels like if pilots could see shit like hi-jacks and loss of cabin pressure through cameras, things in general would become a lot safer. LIKE PILOTS HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT SWITCH KNOBS ONCE THEY'RE UP THERE.

"oh hey, change heading to 185 please, maintain x altitude"
"k lol" *turns knob*

>>984945
Man up, OP! You're a big guy.

I know, if a plane crashes with no survivors it would be extremely painfull, and if somebody would pull off your oxygenmask during turbulences you would die, but maybe getting caught in a plane crash was part of god's plan for you. He could expect you to stay in the wreckage brother.

Don't be afraid!

>>985011
Using parachutes isn't easy. You'll have 200-300 people panicking in a small space and trying to get out of 6-8 doors (maybe not even that considering it might not be safe to jump from doors in front of the wings) from a plane traveling at 500-600 km/h. Also, people with kids, old people, fat people etc.

It's not a very viable option.

>>984949
It used to be true until Muslims decided to "fix" that

Daily reminder that Allah is merciful and gracious

>>985014
>plane crashes
>put on parachute
>sprint to the door
>some fat American is stuck there, yelling about burgers, freedom and Jesus
>everybody dies
Thank you, Obama.

>>985014
Yeah I'm fully aware that there are people not capable of operating a parachute. But that doesn't mean you should just let the rest die.

>>985017
Americans were fat before Obama, though, right?

>>985018
I'm sure there'll be a massive PR nightmare for the manufacturers for basically coming up with a system that saves the lives of a few and not the rest.

I wanna see the massive backlash from the fat apologists when they realize they cant use parachutes, though.

Also, unfit people on the plane could get mad and stop the capable ones from jumping.

>>985017
>plane crashes
>you're alive on the ground
>put on parachute
>sprint to the door
>some fat American is stuck there, yelling about burgers, freedom and Jesus
>everybody dies cause a meteor hits the plane wreck.

>>985020
>>>/b/
/g/ is for serious discussion only.

>>985019
>I'm sure there'll be a massive PR nightmare
Yes exactly this kind of political correct bullshit I'm talking about.
>Noo dont save the lives of healthy people if the fat and handicapped will die
>if im gonna die so are u!

>>985021
That's what you said. "Plane crashes"

>>984990
Take off speed of a 747 is 290 km/h. The primary problem wouldnt even be the speed, but the location of the doors. Youre either in front of the Engines /wings (death) or behind ( possible death from heat.) well, assuming all other variables are eliminated. They're simply not designed to be jumped out of in any situation. You're better off praying you have one hell of a pilot well trained in extreme situations.

Why not just put one giant parachute on the airplane?

>>984945
Because there are quite a few people that survive car crashes, yet when a plane crashes, most often there are no survivors.
People want to console themselves that "even if an accident happens, I may survive", so they'd rather have a 5% chance for an accident with 50% survival rate, instead of a 1% chance for an accident with 0% survival rate, even though mathematically, the latter is the better option.

>>985024
>Designing a plane
>Don't put doors in place you will die
That was hard.

>>985022
True, its BS, but its also not that simple.

Also, reading >>985024 I just recalled that you don't jump from the side of a jet plane cause of the speed and altitude. Those jumps are made from the rear of the aircraft, meaning a massive structural change in aircraft design to incorporate a rear ramp door.

Not worth it.

>>984995
Most of those things aren't single failures though. Like poor maintenance or combinations of personnel errors and shit cause it.

Ice really shouldn't be a problem for commercial liners anymore (assuming the pilots are properly trained).
The pressurizing system failing would alert the pilots who have their own air masks and the masks should drop for the passengers, they can then descend to an altitude where the masks aren't needed and limp to the nearest place to land (pressurization failures are hugely uncommon)

If anything the biggest worry is that your lives are pretty much at the mercy of the pilots.

Is it true that once a plane is up there most people could also keep it up there because of all the computerized systems?

..does it really become as easy as turning knobs to certain numbers?

>>985028
>meaning a massive structural change in aircraft design to incorporate a rear ramp door.
It's worse than that.
Jet airliners have a massive dome in the tail of the plane that's basically the cap sealing the pressurized portion of the craft.
You would need some way to get either around or through that, without compromising its structural integrity, in order to even consider placing a rear ramp for bailing out.

And consider that this dome failing in a 747 caused the vertical stabilizer to be blown clean off soon after takeoff in Japan once (due to poor repair work. I think the manager killed himself afterward).

>>985030
Pretty much, yes. Mostly you input the path heading and let the auto pilot manage the heading changes and throttles.
The pilots are there to monitor.

>>985031
Didn't know this, so I googled it. It's called the aft pressure bulkhead. Thanks for the knowledge, anon.

Does this mean planes with cargo doors don't fly as high as commercial airliners?

Dunno op, there are reasons to fear flying. One reason most don't realize: Regulations are reactive (ie not proactive.). A lot of the big fcc rules are based on accidents that were for seen as a problem but not regulated until after it became a problem.

Rules regulating altitude based on flight direction? Yep, midair collision.

Rules regulating the the step in the landing check list, lower landing gear? Yep, pilot forgot to put the gear down.

>>985032
That kind of spooks me desu, don't know why

>>984950
Statistics is a pseudoscience.

>>984995
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

>>984945
The safest way to travel is teleconferences via Skype

>>985033
Either that or they don't pressurize, so each person on board would have their own mask.

>>984978
pretty sure walking is safer

>>985040
Not really. More people die just walking.

>>985035
Probably the thought of being at the mercy of the computer.
It's pretty much okay though, assuming the pilots are well trained they are there to make sure the plane doesn't go off course or do anything strange. Usually the autopilot systems will warn if something outside perimeters occurs so the pilots can take over.

The only problem is when the pilot does something stupid when faced by an unexpected event from the autopilot, like the Air France Airbus that went down in the Atlantic not that many years ago.

>>985042
Oh I'm not scared of the computer, just.. that any retard could fly that thing once it's up there, even me. So even a complete donkey like myself could find a way to crash it within minutes.

They should make that crap a bit harder to access at least, like some kind of safety lock that prevents ANY interaction with the controls, that only the pilots can unlock with a code of some kind that only they know.

>>985041
do you mean like 90 year olds who fall and hit their head while walking? and people who happen to have heart attacks while walking? and people get run over while crossing the road?

>>984994
>>984999
Because planes weigh too much. The parachute needed to safely land a plane would be huge. And a huge parachute would be a very complicated system, meaning it would be more prone to failure, and also it would add even more weight.

Just look at the size of this parachute compared to the Soyuz capsule. Try to imagine what kind of parachute you would need to land a plane.

Moreover, you can't precisely control where the plane would land.

All of this is why SpaceX doesn't use a parachute to land their Falcon 9's first stage.

>>985027
As many other people have stated, parachuting to the ground isn't as simple as it sounds. Sure you could sacrifice total capacity for a rear jump door, and auto cord rails so they don't have to worry about pulling the cord. But landing is dangerous if you don't know what youre doing. A lot of people would end up with their legs up their ass.

>>985029
I worked at an airport for DHL several years back. Ice should never be a fucking issue, they actually go out and spray the planes down with a de icing chemical that forms an insulative film over them. Internals freezing up should also never happen if they're properly maintained, which a plane is fully inspected everyday prior to flight. If one of those planes has a dent in the fuselage larger than a quarter and more than 1/8" deep, it's grounded. This was on a dc-9, the dent could likely be much larger on bigger planes.

We all know shit doesn't always go according to plan, and human error can never be fully eliminated. But any plane, hell any piece of equipment should be given a full inspection prior to use.

>>985030
We already have the technology for fully automated flight, this includes take off and landing. The pilots are pretty much just there in case the computer malfunctions. They still taxi, take off, and land for now. But eventually they'll just be trained meat sacks put in place because of people's mistrust of machines.

I can't blame them though, where I currently work they have 15mil$ automated forklifts that have an incredibly rudimentary guidance system, yet they still fuck up on a semi regular basis.

>>985033
>>985039
If it's a side cargo door, I'm pretty sure they still achieve full flight altitude. The upper cab is pressurized so the pilots can periodically check the cargo. The belly of the planes however receive no pressure or temperature control. Commercial cargo planes are literally just passenger planes with all the cabinets and chairs ripped out.

>>985041
You pulled that out of your ass.

>>985047
Like 150k pedestrians end up in an emergency center each year in the US alone.

So yeah. Go figure.

>>985043
>that only the pilots can unlock with a code of some kind that only they know.
That's what they have on the doors into the cockpits now, with an extra lock inside the cockpit that overrides input from the panel outside the cockpit so even if you know the code you can't get in.

Possibly part of the reason why MH370 went down and definitely part of the reason why another plane crashed in the alps (I think? it was a German subsidiary airline).

>>985048
and it was totally walking that caused all those hospitalizations huh

>>985046
>Ice should never be a fucking issue, they actually go out and spray the planes down with a de icing chemical that forms an insulative film over them. Internals freezing up should also never happen if they're properly maintained, which a plane is fully inspected everyday prior to flight.
I remember one story of a plane going down (in New York I think?) where the pilots (based out of Florida) tried to use the wash from the plane ahead of them to clear snow off their wings (which melted and then froze to the wings of course) and they didn't turn the deicers in the engines on (did their routine preflight check in a routine manner) so the engines weren't getting a proper reading of airflow.

Unfortunately a lot of the problems in the end come from active human input or decisions.

>>985054
Well the inspection I spoke of is actually done by the certified mechanics. Pilots check Guages and sensors for nominal readings, input necessary information to the computer, and take records of everything.

That sounds like they were rushing to make a flight time, or even a landing window. While I know it would pass me off if my flight was delayed for 2 hours because someone wasn't paying attention to the time. I'd be happier knowing they at least took the time to do shit correctly. That also sounds like something you'd expect from floridians

>>985058
>That sounds like they were rushing to make a flight time, or even a landing window.
Bad weather (snow) was causing flight delays. They were in a queue of a whole bunch of planes waiting to take off.

>>984945
>Flying is the safest way to travel.
Trains are safer, only the statistics take into account accident with people outside the trains, such as people run over at grade crossings, those kinds of things.

>moving a thread on 4chan
This tryhard mod.

>>985075
Man, I was wondering why all the posts had /g/ in them. Also why the posters were bigger dumbasses than usual.

>>984950
Why not switch to deaths per time travelled on method of transportation as opposed to km travelled and see how it adds up.

>>984950
Except there's nothing you can do on a train either, or on a bus, or as a rear passenger in a car.

>>985121
That would literally make no difference.
It would just make the faster modes of transport look way "safer".
So planes would be way further ahead and cycling would be way further behind.

>>984945
Because you're less likely to survive a plane crash than a crash in any other form of transport, even though crashes happen the least in planes.

>>985101
>Also why the posters were bigger dumbasses than usual.
/g/ suffers from the dunning kruger effect to an astonishing degree.
>>985050
Just like it was flying that killed all those people and not the "falling out of the sky" bit. Getting run over by an eighteen wheeler or mauled by a polar bear is an inherent risk found in walking as a mode of transport.

>>984945
Because you have no control over what happens, even the pilot doesn't if the plane fucks up. In a car you can still steer into a ditch and jump out (maybe). Also this >>984948
>>984978
>The frequency of air catastrophes is so low that even the much lower survival rates don't matter, since you're much, MUCH more likely to die in a car.
But fear is usually irrational, and it's the lower survival rates and, more importantly, lower survival likelihood that makes people scared.
>>984983
This.

>>985014
>fat people
Let them die, they're going to die young anyway

>>984945
because it's a giant light weight aluminum tube stuffed full of people and kerosine

>>985574
As opposed to whizzing around in thin steel boxes, filled with gasoline and consistently only barely missing other similar boxes at high speed? Having what speed past you while you're walking doesn't seem safe either, nor does it moving past you while you're balancing on two rubber circles.

>>984957
>>984950

Train/rail=plane > bike > walking > bus>>>>>>>>>>>death cage. In terms of enjoyability and more or less risk of death. Of course if there were fewer cagers no one would die biking/walking.

For OPs question, people are scared of flying because they're inbred flyover morons. hurrr how da big meh-tuhl thingy stay in da air. Cars are the most risky and dangerous transit mode (inb4 but bikes...no, bikes on their own never suicide, they only get jihaded by cagers. no cages on the road = no cyclist deaths, or at least no more than a bathtub causes.) Cars kill tens of thousands a year in just the US alone, but no one is afraid of getting in one. Every day you can walk outside and see a wreck from a car. But that's okay because it's just an "accident." Selective blindness due to cage culture.

>>984958

Kill all the muslims. Problem solved.

>>984970
>per hour driven/flown

A car goes 40 mph, a plane goes 240. Per mile a plane is safer.

Let's return to meaningful measures. If you were going from Virginia to Maine, a plane would be safer than driving there.

>>985040

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/research/dangerous-by-design/dbd2014/fatalities-map/

Not if cagers have something to say about that.

>>984945
The Information Heuristic.
You almost certainly won't hear about a car crash on the news unless there's a good reason to report it (like a 5 car pile up during rush hour)
A commercial airline crashing? It's always going to be in the news lineup.

The availability of information concerning plane crashes vs car crashes is the reason people are afraid to fly. The one in 50000 airplane journeys that actually has any sort of crash WILL reach the news. But you can't honestly expect the news to cover the hundreds of car crashes that happen over the course of 50000 car journeys.

To put it another way, an airplane pilot will fly hundreds or thousands of missions, and there is only a minuscule chance of a crash. Can you say you've had thousands of drives around without a crash?

The last reason airplanes are safer is because of training. You need hundreds of hours of practice and success before you're allowed to get a license. Car drivers don't have that much prior training.

tl;dr people are afraid of flying because they're retards who think they're safer when they're in control.

Because humans can't fly

File: detachable-cabin-concept.gif (658KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 480x270px

>>984975
>>984975
>>984967
>>984981
>>984985
>>984987
>>984995
>>985029
>>985037
>>984986
>>984989
>>984993
>>984996

not knowing about plane parachutes

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/03/08/new-york-parachute-plane-crash-orig-vstan.cnn

File: detachable-cabin-concept-1.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>986001

File: Complexity.jpg (1MB, 2048x1529px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1529px

>>986004
>that fireball in the distance...
Sucks to be the pilots!

But weight, cost, complexity, and the risk of premature ejaculation are what kills this sort of idea.

>>986004
>Windows XP background
I am disinclined to believe this.

>>984994
cirrus makes these for their small planes. pretty smart too since GA is the deadliest form of flight

>>986117
That's not the WinXP background.

>>986141
>GA
Whome?

>>986117
win95 4lyfe!
And what did you think it ran on, Android?

https://youtu.be/Tq_MpdHbjqg

>>986001
>>986004
Wouldn't it make a little more sense to just have the whole body parachute down, after detaching the wings and engines? It would reduce some of the weight and complexity that >>986012 mentioned (and also save the pilots as well).

>>986143
General Aviation

>>984945
Lack of control ( or precived control) over therir surroundings

I take sollace in the fact that if something goes wrong. I will be dead or unconscious before to long.

>>986581
Small aircraft are sometimes equipped with that type of system, but it's not been put on larger ones due to what I imagine are safety concerns, weight limitations and of course money.

>>984948
>because if something goes wrong the chances of survival are nil as opposed to shipwrecks or car crashes or low speed biking accidents.

I used to think this, too.

"Nearly 96 percent of the occupants involved in a Part 121 (all the flying you've ever done) aviation accident over the past 18 years survived the accident, and in over 46 percent of the most serious of these accidents (accidents involving fire, serious injury, and either substantial aircraft damage or complete destruction), more than 80 percent of the occupants survived. Although catastrophic accidents such as TWA flight 800 result in fatalities to all occupants, such accidents are the exception." - NTSB

https://app.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SR0101.pdf

The assumption that "accident = death" is actually a dangerous one, if it causes you to not pay attention to evacuation routes and safety briefings.

>>984995
>fuck the engine exploded oh well there goes our wing bye bye

Commercial aircraft are designed to deal with engine failure, even rated on single-engine take-off at a point where there isn't enough runway to stop.

Wings generally have dry bays near the fan disk, so that pieces of it don't cause fuel leaks in the event of an un-contained rotor burst.

Engines are reliable enough now that they are allowed to fly hours away from an airport (i.e. can fly on single engine long enough to get on the ground + reliable enough to reasonably preclude dual engine failure)

>>985033

FAA Lessons Learned are fantastic for this kind of stuff, here's the JAL123 one (the accident he was talking about)

http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=1&LLID=16&LLTypeID=2

>>987976
>rated on single-engine take-off
At least on european standards planes aren't rated for how many engines are left but for how many are inoperative. Usually OEI, one engine inoperative, for take-off and climbing.

This is true for two and four engined aircraft. There might be some two engines inop stuff but I've not encountered that yet.

>>987977
Love that kind of stuff. Accident reports and results are way too interesting.

File: Worst_pudding_ever.jpg (49KB, 501x379px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 501x379px

>>987977
>maint killed himself over it
>actual name was hiroo

I remember reading that the safest way to travel was the elevator and the second one was the airplane.

>>984967
No mainly because most accidents are in takeoff and landing, where having a parachute probably wouldnt be useful, and if it were, there wouldnt be enough time for very many people to get out.

Also parachuting is deceptively complicated, and to my dismay, infuriatingly expensive.

>>984969
>like 230 knots average
>what the fug?

>>984960
>no except yes
Deaths per distance travelled is literally how you measure the safety of a given mode of transport, you uneducated pleb. Although OP is still wrong, because it's commercial jets that are the safest. Once you get down to tiny private microlights the safety record is a fair bit worse.

>>985021
Was the thread moved?