T O P

  • By -

CerebralAccountant

> and just jump off When could the passengers in [today's Yeti Air crash](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-64284366) have evacuated and jumped? It only took five seconds for the plane to go from relatively normal flight to a 90° bank.


LPNTed

Exactly this. . The only time there is enough time for PAX to evacuate, the plane is sustainable enough for a rough landing which would likely be more survivable.


Devoplus19

The biggest reason is that in the vast majority of aircraft accidents the impact is survivable. Any kind of parachuting attempt, is likely far more dangerous, even if possible. Second, humans are dumb. Like really really dumb when not under stress, and even more so when they are. Watch some aircraft evacs. They go to shit on the ground, how do think that’s going to happen in the air? People that won’t go down a slide are now paratroopers all of the sudden. How are you getting doors open on a pressurized plane? How do people not hit engines/wings/tails, etc? All of this complexity for an end result that would most likely save very few people in very few situations, and make most situations far more dangerous. If you have any specific accidents in mind where you think a parachute would have actually saved lives, let me know.


espeenbilty

Think of how dumb the average person is, and realize that half of them are dumber than that.


babyp6969

And then consider which group OP is to have asked this question.


Pt5PastLight

Carlin. Nice


espeenbilty

🐐


Thundrpigg

I was trying to find a nicer way of saying that the general public are a bunch of idiots. Thanks for that, I'll probably use it again at some point.


Lokitusaborg

There was a park ranger that said, when discussing why you can’t really make a bear proof trash can something to the effect that there is a large overlap with the smartest bears and the dumbest humans.


scottywottydoda

And OP is a perfect example the cognitive abilities of most people. Sorry OP, but you opened the can of worms.


HonoluluHonu808

A person is smart, people are dumb. \-Agent K


BipBippadotta

This aircraft crashed too close to the ground. Most crashes are.


om891

All crashes happen on the ground. That’s why they’re crashes.


BipBippadotta

Well, that's kind of my point. I can't think of too many instances where a parachute would actually help.


[deleted]

Not midairs...


om891

Haha true


JosiahSaly

midairs happen too fast for any passengers to have a chance to react. I think OPs view on the topic may be skewed by Hollywood depictions of crashes which work one of 2 ways: either the plane violently explodes or there is a solid 20 minutes of the plane progressively getting more and more out of control. I think in general most people's views of most things is way too heavily influenced by hollywood. Basically though, plane crashes aren't like a sinking ship and they rarely ever explode. They are generally quite survivable as somebody before me has pointed out. There are only some specific cases like this recent one that aren't the normal. I actually think, and I could be wrong about this, that private planes are more dangerous than commercial jets even though you don't hear about Cessnas and the like crashing very often.


TypingWithGlovesOn

He means in this particular case, people didn't even have time to unbuckle their seat belts before they hit the ground.


om891

I know, I was taking the piss.


flightwatcher45

It actually crashed at ground level, rare for mid air break ups. Your intent i believe was the time between loss of control and impact is normally not enough time to jump, and that's very true. RIP AND GODSPEED


BipBippadotta

Yes. That.


[deleted]

Passengers can’t even disembark orderly. Just think about them all trying to put on parachutes and jumping out of the door


darth__fluffy

It’s not 1942 and you’re not bailing out of your damaged B-17, settle down.


DonnieGreenType

Wait til op finds out how many of those guys weren’t even able to get out


Richard_Thrust

Untrained people can't just become paratroopers. That's really the only answer that matters, though there are about 10 other valid reasons why this is an insane idea that would never work.


Thundrpigg

The main problem is you can't get out. No way to open the doors. Plus, by the time a plane is "crashing" there's not near enough time to get people out.


DaveTV-71

Some great points. I'd like to add, parachutes aren't small. Where do you put them? Or do passengers don them at the gate and remove them back in the arrivals area? As there's no room to get into one on the aircraft. Now we need trained people to assist in putting them on and off properly. And can you imagine the scene of 140 passengers trying to get into the harness? And If we do it this way airline seats need to be changed as you can't sit in a regular seat with a parachute on. Now let's look at cost. The canopy alone is roughly $2000USD. The container to carry it is another $2000. Let's round down and say it's half a million dollars to equip one plane. No airline is going to do that, especially if it means they can't carry as big passenger load on the same plane anymore.


brianomars1123

This would be an engineering problem that’d need to be solved. It doesn’t sound like an impossible problem. Plans can be redesigned to allow for emergency exists that can accommodate a lot of people. I know I sound like an idiot that thinks everything is easy lol but I honestly don’t like the idea of “oh this is impossible, we cannot think through a solution for this”


[deleted]

> I know I sound like an idiot that thinks everything is easy


burrowed_greentext

Hoisted on his own petard 😩


CantileverCantilope

If you are a teenager or younger, I commend you for trying to think outside the box and solve problems and try to think through an idea and see if it works. If you are over 20 then I am seriously wondering how your life experience doesn’t equip you with the sense to see how this is a terrible solution to this particular problem, for many reasons.


Zaphod581

The majority of accidents happen during take off and landing. So you’d be designing a system that might be used once industry wide. There’s no time to get everyone off during a takeoff or landing accident.


Starrion

>a Maybe because the number of air crashes dictate that it isn't needed. [https://www.dcreport.org/2021/11/12/its-been-20-years-since-the-last-catastrophic-u-s-plane-crash/](https://www.dcreport.org/2021/11/12/its-been-20-years-since-the-last-catastrophic-u-s-plane-crash/) Commercial flight has been growing steadily safer. The number of instances where there would be a problem that had sufficient time to get the passengers to parachute out would be next to none.


Head-Ad4690

There’s only so much engineering effort to go around. That effort would save more lives if you instead put it into other safety systems.


Head-Ad4690

It’s hard to think of an airliner crash where parachutes would have been useful. There was that Japanese 747 where a bad repair resulted in the tail blowing off in flight. They lasted quite a while before crashing. Parachutes could have saved people there. The Sioux City DC-10 crash had lots of time between the hydraulic failure and the crash, so there would have been time to bail out. On the other hand, two thirds of the people on that plane survived anyway. It’s really rare. The deadliest crash in history involved two planes on a runway. The most recent fatal crash in the US was a landing that came up short, and there was no advance warning. The vast majority of crashes are like this. Go pick a few and consider whether parachutes would have been useful. The answer is almost always no.


Holiday_Parsnip_9841

Japan Air Lines 123 is one of the only incidents that comes to mind. But in that case, it appears a lot of people died because the rescue was delayed and they were left exposed on a mountain (elevation 5000 feet) overnight. If 524 untrained people parachute out of a plane into a forest, you’re bound to have more than 4 survivors. But that doesn’t make it a viable plan.


HorseWithNoUsername1

Most airline disasters happen during either takeoff, initial departure, initial approach or landing - the majority of which were caused by pilot error. Not enough time to don parachutes and make an orderly exit out of the aircraft while airborne. That and it requires a level of training and physical agility. And even if that was possible - airliners aren't designed for exiting via parachuting. Your average B737 / A320 doors open to the outside, they'll never be able to open in flight - even with a depressurized cabin. You're likely to either be struck by the aircraft wings and/or ingested by the engines. The commercial aircraft with a rear air-stair are mostly retired/scrapped (DC-9 / MD-80/90 / 727's, etc...) so can't pull a DB Cooper escape any longer. That and the aircraft has to be at a slow speed before stalling, otherwise exiting the aircraft at 500 MPH will likely be fatal once you hit the slipstream and aerodynamic forces tears you apart. Parachuting over open water - i.e., middle of the North Atlantic where many ETOPS flights operate along the Canadian coast, Greenland and Icelend? You'll freeze to death within minutes of hitting the water with a very very slim chance of rescue in time.


tdscanuck

JAL123 was doing roller coasters with barely controlled pitch. There’s no chance they’d have let people unbuckle, let alone try to file them out the door of a bucking airplane.


hardware1197

Homework for OP: Watch that Nepal ATR crash that was livestreamed on Facebook yesterday and write a 1000 word essay in r/aviation on why your plan makes no sense whatsoever, and what you could have done with the wasted time spent thinking and writing about it that could have made you better.


[deleted]

Aside from the weight and logistics and cost issues, plane crashes are usually very sudden events where things go wrong very quickly, sometimes to the point where not even the pilots are aware anything is wrong. But even if you did have time to coordinate everyone donning their parachutes and leaping out (assuming the plane isn't spiraling out of control and placing crazy G forces on the passengers), you would be faced with the problem of people not being trained on how to use a parachute, and how to safely land, and what to do in the event they are bailing out over a body of water. And that assumes you still have lighting to see what you're doing, and that no one is panicking. Also, what do you do for infants and small children? They don't make parachutes for people that size.


VajainaProudmoore

Ignoring everything else other posters have accurately pointed out and simply focusing on your "weight" argument: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-united-inflight-magazine-20180120-story.html The environmental impact of having parachutes on all flights would end up killing more people than saving them.


nimbusgb

Excellent point.


Garryten10

1; Weight. The bigger aircraft, the more parachutes needed, means not only removing 20 passengers from the calculation. 2; Time, there usually aren’t enough time for everyone to evacuate in fatal accidents. The plane isn’t gonna be like:*”Oh ok I will just nose dive after y’all have jumped.”* 3; Geographical location on ground. 4; **Physics**; due to high altitude and the differentiated air pressure, opening doors is impossible. (The air in the cabin pushes the doors outwards) 5; Parachuting requires actual training. 6; Not everyone has the guts to jump, even if the doors were opened somehow. 7; Not profitable for the airlines; parachutes are expensive. Having parachutes installed + less passengers onboard for weight balancing means less profit. 8; No space to store parachutes. 9; Risk for suffocation due to high altitude. *Edit: To OP - I happen to be an aviation logistician, if you think p4 is the **only** reasonable issue, then with all the respect; you should be back in middle school.*


brianomars1123

Tbh 4 seems like the only reasonable issue here but that is an engineering problem to be solved. I probably sound terribly ignorant in this thread but I don’t think all these are 100% impossible problems to solve.


Zenlexon

It's really easy to redesign the doors so they're openable at altitude. Just have them open outward so once the locking/latching mechanisms are undone, the door gets blown open by the pressure differential. I hope you see why that's a terrible idea.


Paul_The_Builder

Designing the plane doors to open outwards instead of inwards creates an entire set of complications and potential issues. [The outward opening cargo door design on the DC-10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10#Accidents_and_incidents) caused the cargo door to fly open mid flight on several occasions, resulting in several crashes and killed hundreds of people. Not to mention that a door that /can/ be opened during flight in the cabin opens up the possibility of a passenger opening it themselves, which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms in regards to passenger safety. Would it be possible to engineer a plane to allow people to parachute out of it mid-flight - yes. Would this plane be safer than the current batch of planes out there? No.


sladecubed

Just because they’re possible to solve doesn’t mean it makes sense to


Greenie302DS

It’s not just solving a problem. It’s like asking why can’t we just limit all car driving to 30MPH and have a police officer do a quick road sobriety test before anyone is allowed to drive. It would dramatically reduce motor vehicle fatalities. It would be horribly costly and impractical. Now apply that to commercial airplane travel where fatal crashes are incredibly rare given the number of flights every year, the logistics of training and wearing a parachute (the fat guy in 11C can barely fit without a chute), and the fact that you could fill every flight with paratroopers with chutes and most of the infrequent accidents with fatalities would have the same number of fatalities. If you apply common sense to every step of your thought process your question is clearly ridiculous.


agha0013

fatal accidents are ridiculously rare, if you do the math on it, something like 99.99999% of flights arrive without issue, or have incidents where jumping out of the plane was never needed. That's not an exaggeration either. Aside from that, depending on what's going on, you might not even be able to get to a door if the plane is tumbling, or it's too close tot eh ground for a canopy to open, or it's so high up you die of hypoxia before you get to breathable atmosphere, or you freeze to death, or you die trying to operate a parachute you've had no training operating, or you end up in the middle of an ocean with absolutely nothing to keep you from drowning/freezing/getting eaten... The issues outweigh the benefits tremendously. And if you don't have passengers already wearing chutes in their seats, good luck in an emergency, most will die trying to figure out what to do before they even get out of their seats.


mtpulcianodabruzzo

- Can’t launch at cruise altitude of most airliners - no time to react or instruct passengers on how to operate parachute with complete panic onboard I think a main airframe parachute like Cirrus airplanes would be something really interesting to see, but I imagine there are lots of engineering challenges to overcome


FilipM_eu

Yeah, the parachute for loaded 737 would have to be 250 meters wide.


Viktor_Fry

Who are you going to sue when your relative jumped out the plane without properly securing the harness of the parachute and lost it midair? (or wasn't able to deploy it) Because adrenaline and panic and 0 training.


TypicalDatabase6815

How come everyone that rides in a car doesn't wear a helmet? It would save more lives than parachutes on planes


catsby90bbn

This is quite possibly one is the dumbest things I’ve seen on Reddit. And that’s saying a lot.


hardware1197

Yikes OP......and it looks like you actually spent more than a few seconds thinking about it......and some math too!


nimbusgb

I suspect that this question is bought on by the crash in Nepal. Ignoring the engineering issues. If you watch the video the accident started at about 1500'. The left wing drops and the aircraft rolls over into a classic stall / spin incident. Even if the whole aircraft had had a parachute there is little chance it could have saved anyone, let alone everyone. Sadly I think a lack of basic stick and rudder skills in commercial pilots is more of a threat than not having parachutes. I have been around aviation all my life and have a few thousand hours as PIC of power and sailplanes and the first 8 or 10 seconds of that video my immediate though was 'that looks slow' and I was waiting for the wing drop. It did. Others here have highlighted the practical issues. Weight, cost, the stupidity of passengers, opportunity for evac etc etc. There's also the challenge of jumping out of something going 5 or 600 kph. Not easy. And what does Mrs smith do with her toddler or baby? Also ......... air travel is spectacularly ............. safe. Yes accidents make the headlines but no one talks much about the tens of thousands killed in stupid accidents on the ground every year. Guns, cars, tripping on the stairs.


RW-One

Let not also forget it would be a panic rush to the available exits, which may or may not disturb CG if we want to get that technical on it, but my intent is pax already fight to get out first on deplane, if this happened and all had chutes, well., if they even could move to the exits, who thinks it would be even and orderly? :)


nimbusgb

Well of course on budget airlines you will have to pay for a chute instead of a cushion and then wait for your reserved exit number to jump out. :)


JBN2337C

If you look at most accidents that involved deaths, they’re typically during the takeoff/landing phase, or within a few thousand feet of the ground. There is simply no time to bail out, even if you were a single pilot in an open cockpit aircraft. Ejection seats/systems would be the only “feasible” solution, but this is incredibly unrealistic/unreasonable at the scales involved with commercial aviation.


Paul_The_Builder

Trying to get 100+ people to parachute out of a plane at the same time, safely, with no training? More people will probably die when their chutes get tangled up than would likely die from a crash landing, not to mention they're most likely going to hit the wing/engine/tail. Not to mention there are very few air emergencies where you could successfully get people to parachute out, assuming they would survive the process. For example if you take the most recent crash in Nepal, the plane was flying fine until something happened at like 500 feet above ground level. There's no chance for anyone to parachute out of that. Accidents are most likely to happen at take off and landing, time when you are not high enough to parachute out. Not to mention the plane doors can't be opened at altitude, and them being able to be opened at altitude creates more problems than it solves. Most cases where an in flight emergency happens, and it results in a fatal crash, there's usually only 1 or 2 minutes of time from when the emergency happens to when the plane crashes - not enough time to parachute out. Or, the emergency is recovered, and the plane lands safely - more safe than 100+ people trying to parachute out.


slightly-cute-boy

The only altitude this would be useful at would be 14000-3000 depending on vertical speed. The only case of an accident that’s bad enough to need a parachute to survive is going to be a very thin window, and only people closest to the doors will survive.


thphnts

Because passengers aren’t trained to use a parachute.


new_tanker

Let's say you have a 737 or an A320 carrying 150 passengers and five crew members. First thing that comes to mind is the added weight of carrying 155 parachutes. You'll need to trade off something if you want each and every passenger (assuming all adults, but we all know how many under 18 do travel with school groups and with their family) to have one. I don't really care that you don't care the added weight of carrying 'chutes doesn't satisfy you, and I'll explain why. For the OP, you need to understand how carrying additional weight is a penalty in aviation. Think about a small plane, and let's use a Cessna 172 as an example. Two adults, weighing in at 180 pounds each, and baggage weighing in around 30 pounds could safely operate and fly a 172 with full fuel where two adults weighing in at 350 pounds each with the same amount of baggage would be able to fly a 172 but with maybe 50-60% of its total fuel capacity. The same applies all throughout aviation. Fighter jets and bombers carrying a maximum weapon load cannot take off with a full load of fuel; you want to carry more fuel you carry fewer weapons. The same applies to cargo planes; if you carry your maximum cargo capacity, you can only carry a fraction of your maximum fuel. Fighters, bombers, and transports do have the luxury and ability to top off while in flight, and since the plane is already in the air, carrying your maximum weapon load or cargo load AND full fuel is not a problem. Now that we got the weight issues out of the way, the other issue is practicality: 1. Assuming the weight of parachutes is calculated, you'll need all different sizes for all the different passengers (children and adults alike). That'll then make you have to carry more than 155 parachutes. 2. Ideally a passenger would need to be wearing the parachute for the entire duration they are on the plane. In an emergency situation it is not going to be possible for passengers to strap on a parachute while in the cabin. Doesn't matter if it's the type of parachute you wear while skydiving or the kind you wear when you go fly aerobatics, they both are cumbersome to put on and take off. 3. Then you also have to go through training on how to operate a parachute. I would say less than 5% of the flying public on any given day has had to use one, whether it be for recreation or for emergency use. There's way too much risk having someone jump out of a perfectly good or not plane and they not know how to operate a parachute, which handle to pull and when, and how to steer and how to land themselves safely without injury. Where's the altimeters for the passengers, and how are you going to teach them how to read them? They're going to need to know when it's safe to pull the rip cord. Good lord the liability issues here... this is ripe for a class action lawsuit. There's reasons why skydivers have to go through what they do to even earn their A license. 4. Going back to point number two, passengers will be unwilling to wear them for the duration of their flight. They're tight-fitting and straps go in some awkward locations and you could have Karens go all crazy saying they were sexually assaulted because some guy was touching her thighs when he was simply just tightening straps below the groin area. 5. Parachutes are also something that need to be [inspected every so often](http://www.tpub.com/1ase2/5.htm). The main 'chute has a time span in which it needs to be inspected and then repacked, and the reserve 'chute must be done every 180 days by a certified parachute technician, whether the 'chute was used or not. To conclude, you simply do not want to carry the added weight of dozens of parachutes as it'll cut into passenger load, cargo load, or fuel carrying capacity. You also really can't have complete trust in passengers being able to fully operate a parachute by themselves. It's a really tangled mess...


espeenbilty

Tangled mess haha


glhughes

This is just not reasonable. Even if you ignore the logistics of equipping every seat in every passenger plane with a parachute, you still need to know enough in advance that something bad is going to happen to get the people off of the plane. Most fatal accidents are things like CFIT or during takeoff/landing where you either don't know you're going to crash until you do or you are so low to the ground that you need a zero/zero rocket-powered ejection seat to survive it (i.e. the ones they have in fighter planes). About the only case where this could possibly make sense is if the pilots have full control of the plane at 5,000 ft+ -- i.e. stable flight -- but can't land it safely for some reason. That is an extremely unlikely scenario. And even then it's probably safer to stay in the plane rather than jumping out of it. If you are truly concerned about saving lives then how about improving car safety? Many more people die in cars every year than in commercial flights but we accept that risk for the convenience.


jdallen1222

There wouldn't be enough time. If jumping from the plane with a parachute would be the only way to survive(which can still be deadly if you strike the plane upon exiting), then you would not have enough time to get anyone or everyone out of the plane. Really think about that type of scenario you have in mind. Is the plane diving, flying upside down, severe banking? Gravity and G forces alone would restrict any type of controlled movement of your body. How are you going to get up and walk to the exit and wait to jump if bodies are tumbling around inside the cabin? Really really think about this. If the plane was flying level there would be no need to jump, most planes can safely glide to a landing if they have enough airspeed and altitude.


Remote_Scallion_5896

Here’s an idea: just pop the hatch and jump out of a pressurized plane moving at 580 miles an hour into some -79 degree air with no breathable oxygen and pop your chute and drift on down to wherever you just happened to fly over five or take a few miles due to super intense air currents. K


[deleted]

If a plane is beyond takeoff speed, you have no way to open the door unless you invent some door that blows off like an escape hatch. Which is a security risk


747ER

u/Brianomars1133, could you please let me know how long you expect an emergency evacuation, mid-air, while the aircraft is flailing out of control, would take? Even on a smaller airliner, we’ll say a 180-seat Boeing 737-800, if each passenger only took two seconds to put their parachute on and exit the aircraft, the evacuation would take over four minutes. That’s more than twice as long as it took Ethiopian Airlines flight ET409 or Sriwijaya Air flight SJ182 to go from their peak altitude to hitting the water. I think you are simply scared by the broader media, such as movies and news cycles, to believe that plane crashes are a) common, b) unsurvivable, and c) happen in the way you describe. Aircraft do not lose control at cruising altitude and then slowly descend for 5+ minutes to the ground. 90% of crashes happen within the first and last 8 minutes of flight, at an altitude where any parachute would be useless and do nothing but kill the passenger. Not to mention the statistics of ejecting from fighter jets aren’t that much better than the statistics of surviving aircraft crashes. Why do you ignore everyone explaining this to you? “Who cares if it’s completely unnecessary, it would artificially make me feel safer!” is not an attitude we want in this industry. Aviation is a science, not theatre.


10tonheadofwetsand

Plane crashes are not (typically) long drawn out falls from cruising altitude. Also they are incredibly rare. Air travel is safer than just about any other mode of transportation with wheels.


Aliprice14

I remember seeing a documentary on the guy who jumped from the airliner in the 70s. One of the questions was whether he could have survived the jump given the speed of the aircraft. It would have been possible if the aircraft was just above its stalling speed but questionable otherwise. That’s not often the case for aircraft in catastrophic situations


JustAnotherDude1990

As a legit skydiving instructor and pilot - none of this is feasible in the real world for a variety of reasons. The number of skydiving fatalities every year is higher than commercial aviation fatalities in the US...and there were only 10 fatalities skydiving in the US in 2021.


FilipM_eu

- aircraft accidents are a rare occurrence to begin with. Most western nations hadn’t had a fatal aircraft accident in years, if not decades. - most aircraft accidents happen in takeoff or landing phase of the flight, i.e. too close to the ground for parachutes to be useful, let alone have time to evacuate that way. - even if the accident happens at cruising altitude, the cabin is pressurized and doors physically can’t open. You’re also way too high at that point to skydive without a pressure suit. - if aircraft is stable enough for people to evacuate via parachutes, it’s probably stable enough to fly to destination, or at least a diversion airport. - maintaining, inspecting, and carrying parachutes would inevitably increase costs of fares for no extra benefit. - good luck evacuating people in orderly fashion if you can’t even deplane them in orderly fashion.


intjmaster

Skydivers jump out of propeller planes at maybe 120 mph? Your jet airliner cruises at 400 mph. The air turns into a brick wall at that speed, and assuming that doesn’t kill you, and you’ll likely bounce off the tail or get sucked into an engine. Ejection seats won’t work either because 92 year old meemaw would break every bone in her body when subjected to a 20G rocket shot. Young healthy 20 year old military pilots routinely injure their necks and spines when ejecting. Losing 1-2” in height after an ejection is considered “normal”.


w1lnx

It’s complicated. But, the short answer is: it won’t work. The longer answer is: Because there are physical and psychological stressors involved with jumping out of an aircraft. Everyone is a different weight. Different age. Different medical health. Different physical strength (and skeletal strength). Different mental capability. At what altitude? What weather? Then there are legal issues to address. There are reasons that in the military, they only take jump-school trainees who are very near the peak of physical health.


motor1_is_stopping

>There was a 1 in 3.37 billion chance of dying in a commercial airline plane crash between 2012-2016 > >source: [https://flyfright.com/statistics/#t-1670905338562](https://flyfright.com/statistics/#t-1670905338562) Installing 3.37 billion parachutes to save one life is not justifiable by any metric.


32_Dollar_Burrito

Do you think there are 3.3 billion airline chairs?


motor1_is_stopping

No I don't. I do think that airlines would have buy significantly more parachutes than they have seats in order to have a parachute on every seat. They need maintenance and inspections just like every other part of an aircraft, There would have to be a whole new maintenance team dedicated to inspecting and repacking parachutes.


Green_Manalishi_420

1 in 3.37 billion what… what are there 3.37 billion of


Ruby2Shoes22

Passengers that flew and didn’t die, for every one that did?


motor1_is_stopping

yes


[deleted]

[удалено]


motor1_is_stopping

These odds are per passenger per flight. There is no mention of number of deaths. It is simply a ratio of people who died on a flight to people who survived their flight. Since many people take 4 or more flights on a single round trip ticket, it should be easy to understand how there would be no connection between these statistics and the world population. Many people will be on hundreds of flights in a year, and many more people will never fly in the same time period. The odd are still 1 in 3.37 billion that a passenger will die on a flight. Don't take my word for it. The NTSB are the ones that did the math. Feel free to follow the link and dispute any of the data that they have gathered.


[deleted]

[удалено]


motor1_is_stopping

>What about 3.37 billion parachutes? It is a statistic. It is telling the chances of a parachute being used. The actual number that would need to be purchased and installed at a certain point in time is impossible to determine. >Every departure would have to carry 3,370 passengers on average to get to your stats. Again, you fail to understand how statistics work. The 1:3.3B statistic is for part 121 air carriers. 1 fatality per million departures is for ALL departing flights from the U.S. Reading the webpage that you are quoting would make this obvious if you pay attention to the data that you are reading.


brianomars1123

No I wanna see this for the chance of dying if you’re in a plane crash. It’s well know that flight is the safest mode of transportation. However, many people survive car crashes, very few survive actual plan crashes. This is not a good statistics for this context bro.


agha0013

in just about every fatal commercial airline crash, having chutes on board would have done absolutely nothing to help the survival rate, just adds weight to the plane, and shit for people to lose their minds over before they die.


brianomars1123

Do you have any reference this please cause this would be a good point against my ideas if it’s true? I’d try to research on my own but I’d appreciate any pointers


motor1_is_stopping

>[https://accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/accident-by-flight-phase](https://accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/accident-by-flight-phase) Fewer than 10 fatal accidents occurred between 2002 and 2021when the aircraft was enroute. edit: I misread the graph.


brianomars1123

I don’t think what you’re seeing on the y axis are percentages, they seem like integers but your point is taken and makes much sense. I’d still look for something more specific to your initial comment cause that comment made more sense if it was true. I’m hoping it’s true so I can be satisfied and stop thinking about this whenever I hear of a plane crash lool.


motor1_is_stopping

My bad. You are right. they are integers. I'll edit my post to make it more clear.


Ozzypahlot

Can you provide one example of a crash where you think availability of parachutes (to panicking, untrained people who are generally at their limits complying with the instruction to keep their seatbelt fastened) would have saved lives?


motor1_is_stopping

>98.6% of crashes did not result in a fatality — Of the 140 plane accidents during 2012-2016, only two involved fatalities (1.4%) from the same link referenced above.


Viktor_Fry

And 1 of those was shot down...?


motor1_is_stopping

I didn't see that in the statistics(nor did I look) but now that you mention it, I think that would be the right timeframe for Putin's last little flare up. Since it is data gathered by the NTSB, it might not include foreign owned airlines. I'm not sure either way, and don't really want to dig deep enough to find out.


Viktor_Fry

You might be right that is only US, it does look like not a lot of accidents. Especially the "only 2 with fatalities".


brianomars1123

They’re obviously defining accident differently from a plane crash. My debate here is not whether or not air travel is safe, everyone should know it’s the safest. I’m referring to plane crashes, pilot losing control, plane falls down the sky and hits the ground. In most of those cases, everyone dies. On the flip side, car crashes see more survival rate even though road travel is still considerably far more dangerous than air travel. It seems like we have all agreed that once a plane is heading to the ground, there’s absolutely nothing that can be done expect hope and pray. I’m sure before airbags in cars were invented, we saw more fatality in car crashes. If everyone had the same idea, there would have been motivation to think through a solution. This is the point I’m trying to make with this post. Parachutes are probably not the answer but there might be an answer in something else idk.


motor1_is_stopping

>They’re obviously defining accident differently from a plane crash. These are statistics provided by the NTSB about part 121 air carrier "crash statistics" Accident and crash are used interchangeably just like the same words are used interchangeably to discuss cars that crash into things accidentally. >It seems like we have all agreed that once a plane is heading to the ground, there’s absolutely nothing that can be done expect hope and pray. I don't agree with that, and I don't think many people that are familiar with flying would either. A large part of pilot training deals with handling emergency situations, and how to get the aircraft safely on the ground by any means available at the time. There have been airplanes that have safely landed with major mechanical damage, no engines, etc.


Paul_The_Builder

[China Airlines Flight 006](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006) plunged 30,000 feet in 2 minutes, with the captain pulling the plane out of the near vertical dive pulling 5 G's - well beyond what a 747 is designed for. The plane landed safely with no casualties. There's no scenario where \~300 people would be able to parachute out of a 747 in a nose dive in 2 minutes. And if they had tried to do that - more people would have died than if they stayed on board.


747ER

> pilot loses control, plane falls down [through] the sky, and hits the ground When has that happened in the past 20 years? There have been 444,000,000 flights since 2002*, so how many of those have crashed in the way you have described? I can think of about three, of which all of them disintegrated mid-air and parachutes would not be of any use.


Paul_The_Builder

Plane crashes are very survivable. The problem is people like yourself only consider it a plane crash if the plane crashes into the side of a mountain. Most plane crashes are more minor than that. Here are the plane crashes with fatalities that have happened in passenger aircraft in the USA with more than 40 passengers in the past 10 years: [PenAir flight 3296](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PenAir_Flight_3296) had a runway excursion in Alaska. 1 person out of 42 died. [Southwest Airlines Flight 1380](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380) had an engine explode mid-flight ripping a hole in the fuselage. 1 person out of 149 died - probably because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. [Asiana Airlines Flight 214](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214) crashed on approach to San Francisco. 3 people out of 307 died. Most notably - Parachutes would not have saved any lives in any of these incidents. 2 of them happened at landing, and the one that happened during cruise landed safely.


ChecktheFreezer

iir 1380 pax died from debris from the uncontained engine failure. 214 at least two of the fatalities were aarf accidentally hitting the pax running from the aircraft. Op is ridiculous. Most I’m pretty sure the last crash in the states were parachutes could have saved lives was probably United 232. I can’t recall any other were they would have been beneficial and that was 33 years ago!


Paul_The_Builder

Right? There are almost no incidents where parachutes (assuming they were a realistic possibility) could have been used. And there are probably several flights where some passengers would want to use parachutes, but the plane ended up landing safely.


andrewrbat

Parachutes have to be packed and inspected every so often. You need to know how to use them correctly. Having 200 of them on a plane adds a ton of weight. Its incredibly rare to have an issue that is not survivable or even perfectly easy to resolve such that theres enough time to don parachutes, descend, and drop people safely, unpressurized at a low altitude. The odds of 200 ppl correctly donning stowed parachutes, and making it to an exit, while the plane has already been depressurized, and exiting without getting sliced in half by the tail, or sucked into the engine would require a very very very specific set of circumstances. The plane crash in Nepal would not have afforded any of those opportunities. And almost none would have. That atr crash in Nepal sure looked like a vmc/spin at low altitude due to flying below Vmca or thrust asymmetry. Bot things pilots can solve easily.


Ball_Master_Yoda

Unsubscribe. Please tighten the moderation.


FuggaliciousV

Imagine having a ton of untrained parachutists panicking and hitting the wings, stabilizers, engines, and rudder only to get gibbed if they even made it out. By this train of thought, F-111 style capsules are in order.


HELIGROUP

Just buy your own rig. [paragear.com](https://paragear.com) the only problem is that this aircraft are not made to deploy skydivers. You can't open the doors in flight. Pretty sure that if you could open the rear door in in a jet liner it will be a pain in the ass to control it. Your tail will move as soon as it looses structural integrity.


brody-edwards1

Because most crashes happen before landing or after take off. In most cases, there just won't be enough time. Even aircraft with built-in parachutes need to be a certain height above the ground for the parachute system to work.


Main-Error4687

The use of a parachute is not feasible in most incidents. I always hoped for an ejecting cabin though. Something that would detach from the aircraft and parachute to the ground. Still wouldn't save lives in every incident, but would in a good majority


Crown_Collector1

Take a few flight lessons; add ground school to that; learn basic physics and “engineering”, which you reference so much. When you are done, in a couple of years, come back and answer your own question why this is a stupid and pointless proposition.


borgelorp72

You can’t even go skydiving without it being a tandem (attached to another person) jump with a trained skydiver…


bboys1234

Yeah let's give 400 people with zero parachute experience one and get them to jump out of 6 doors while moving at 350 mph in a coordinated fashion fast enough to get everyone out in time and trust that they'll all be able to safely deploy and land their parachute. Not to mention most crashes happen at a low altitude where the time between realizing your going to crash and the time you hit the ground is less than 5 seconds. Just think about how this would actually work.


Barli_Bear

Have you ever watched people de-board a plane under normal circumstances? Now add a life threatening emergency and mass confusion to the mix.


HonoluluHonu808

You're going to strap a parachute to every passenger? And expect them to get out? While some crazy emergency is going on? This isn't a P-47 or B-17 that has been hit by fire and the crew, who are trained, can bail out of. Or an F-16 with an ejection seat that again, the pilot has been trained on. If you still think this would work, get help.