Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
If ever there was a time we needed a bowlologist, it's now.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                             

Cocoon Chute Seats

Seats that envelope passangers into cocoons on parachutes in evacuation circumstances.
  (+5, -2)
(+5, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

Every seat in such an airplane is equipped with an eject button, which generally is inactive. Pilots are equipped with evacuate button (which could self-activate under emergency circumstances).

When evacuation is activated, the airplane's belly explodes while releasing all the baggage to make space below the seats, and the eject buttons activate for all passenger seats.

When a passenger clicks the eject button, his/her seat falls down through the framework.

Under the framework that holds all seats, for each seat there is a corrugated soft gum-like transparent material that envelopes the whole seat with the passenger as the force of gravity pushes them down (so, the whole person would appear in something like a cocoon, protected from strong cold wind)

In each seat, there is also an "expand parachute" button, that activates the parachute to expand.

P.S. I guess the category [Vehicle: Aircraft: Safety] would suit this better, but there is no such.

Mindey, Jul 18 2014

Please click link for awesome vintage animation. http://www.youtube....watch?v=lGX0l_p6OqE
Starts at about 3:30 [doctorremulac3, Jul 22 2014]

Softie Parachute http://www.parachut...ie%20Parachutes.htm
Widely purchased and used by GA pilots. [8th of 7, Jul 22 2014]

Lots of pilots are GA ... http://en.wikipedia...ki/General_aviation
Not just a pretty fuselage ... [8th of 7, Jul 23 2014]

[link]






       I'm not sure this would be a good idea. For one thing, commercial aircraft spend most of their time at 30,000 feet travelling at 400+ mph. Neither of those circumstances is propitious for an exit.   

       For another, I'm not sure how many people survived the missile strike on MH17. Possibly many, given the intact state of many of the bodies. But there are very few situations where people are left alive yet where their best option is to exit the aircraft.   

       Next, there are something like 30 or 40 million scheduled flights per year. If this system deploys wrongly on just 0.000001% of those flights , it will kill more people than it could possibly save.   

       Finally, the cost would be huge. Passengers do not want to pay for safety (except in the immediate aftermath of a crash).   

       If you are going to spend money to make aircraft safer, there are much much better ways to do it. Give everyone a smoke hood. Ensure that existing tracking capabilities are actually used (they weren't on MH370). Build new airports to replace the least safe and most overcrowded ones.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 18 2014
  

       // If you are going to spend money to make aircraft safer, there are much much better ways to do it. //   

       Agreed.   

       I'm wondering, what are the primary causes of death in aircraft accidents in general? Impacts? Burns? Suffocation? Low pressure? Freezing? If we know the associated numbers, we could think by targeting how to prevent the factors that do kill more people, while leave out others.
Mindey, Jul 18 2014
  

       I would guess that it's:   

       (a) Trauma in the case of bombs, missiles, or most crashes   

       (b) Fire in the case of some crashes and crash- landings   

       (c) Anoxia in the case of high-altitude partial breakup. [EDIT actually I don't know. There's no reason the depressurization would kill you, and the anoxia wouldn't have time be fatal if you were in freefall from 30,000ft.]   

       After MH17, witnesses said they saw bodies falling. If someone wasn't killed by the initial impact or the breakup of the plane, they'd be above 20,000ft for something like 30-40s. Given that it takes maybe 20-30s for someone to lose consciousness at 30,000ft, and given that many of the bodies were intact and clothed (ie, some at least had escaped the impact and had not been violently ripped at), it's quite possible that some people were conscious until they hit the ground.   

       I would also guess that smoke hoods and/or better fire suppression would save the most lives per pound.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 18 2014
  

       Welcome to the Halfbakery, [Mindey].   

       I'm not so sure I would worry about being "protected from strong cold wind". I'd be more worried about this mechanism being dependent on individual passengers activating their own chutes.   

       I think I'd run it on automatic via sensor input with a pilot override / backup system. I think it could be fun to be napping or tossing back a cocktail only to find yourself following your luggage to the ground when the system malfunctions.
normzone, Jul 18 2014
  

       For cases a) trauma and b) fire, it seems like adding the ability for passengers to leave the aircraft if it is filling with smoke, or before it hits the ground could be effective. However I think that in the majority of crashes, the first indications that there will be a crash occurs too close to the ground for parachutes to open effectively.   

       Fume hoods may actually be the next most cost effective life saving device on a plane, but the ability to bail out would probably add the most to the passenger perception of safety. I bet if an airline advertised that they had planes equipped with ejection seats, there would be a large number of people with a poor understanding of statistics and physics who would be willing to pay $10 to $50 more per flight for the small added safety of a system like this.
scad mientist, Jul 18 2014
  

       // a large number of people with a poor understanding of statistics and physics who would be willing to pay $10 to $50 more per flight for the small added safety of a system like this.//   

       In that case, the most effective solution is to tell passengers that there are ejector seats. Charge them the extra $50, and use half of that to provide smoke hoods.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 18 2014
  

       " If you have children traveling with you, please follow the instructions in the folder in the seat back in front of you, and use the lock out / slave to your seat control settings. The airline cannot be held responsible for children who are allowed to eject themselves"
normzone, Jul 18 2014
  

       "In case of malfunction, please contact your premature eject liaison."   

       Thank you, [normzone]! Looks like an amazing place!   

       // I think I'd run it on automatic via sensor input with a pilot override / backup system. //   

       Me too. One could make the activation of evacuation mode be automatic, but I think the ejection choice should be left for the individual passengers to decide, because it would make sense making sure you had properly fastened the seat-belts.
Mindey, Jul 19 2014
  

       Welcome [Mindey]. Hope you enjoy your stay here. A + for the sentiment as we all struggle to find safer airlines.
blissmiss, Jul 19 2014
  

       //we all struggle to find safer airlines//   

       But do we? I don't think we do, except in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.   

       Impromptu poll: when you last chose a flight, did you choose the airline on the basis of safety information?
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 19 2014
  

       [blissmiss], thank you! Is there some good way to track the annotations that mention my username? Should I make my own custom views? What custom views would you recommend to have? I think something like "inbox" would be useful.
Mindey, Jul 20 2014
  

       // Impromptu poll: when you last chose a flight, did you choose the airline on the basis of safety information? //   

       Yes.
8th of 7, Jul 20 2014
  

       // Impromptu poll: when you last chose a flight, did you choose the airline on the basis of safety information? //   

       Yes. Which airlines are safer, which seats have higher survival rates, etc.
Mindey, Jul 20 2014
  

       [Mindey], I wish I could help you, but I can't. I read all the new ideas and comment on the ones I understand, have some knowledge of, or just like the poster and have not seen them in a while. Other people have different views and they would be of more assistance. But welcome again. It's a crazy place to visit, but you usually leave having gained some nugget of insight into something foreign to you. Tata.
blissmiss, Jul 20 2014
  

       Additionally, I'm pretty sure almost all airline crashes take place during landing or takeoff where bailing out wouldn't be an option.   

       That being said, some enterprising (if immoral) entrepreneur could probably sell an emergency parachute featuring carry on bag. Basically a small parachute in a backpack. When you hit turbulanceseses clutch it to your chest, grip the rip cord with white knuckles and whimper softly like a little pussy to entertain the other passengers. Would it save your life? Probably not, but people would probably buy them.   

       By the way, the B-58 Hustler, the world's most beautiful vehicle, not just aircraft, featured quick closing pods for ejecting from a plane travelling at mach 2 without mussing up your hair. I believe the whole thing parachuted to Earth but maybe the pilot jumped once it reached terminal velocity, I'll have to check.   

       Nope, you stayed in it and it acted as a life raft. Please see the awesome animation in the link.
doctorremulac3, Jul 22 2014
  

       //Basically a small parachute in a backpack. //   

       Baked. <link>   

       // Would it save your life? Probably not //   

       Definitely will given that;   

       You exit the aircraft at least 1000' above terrain;   

       You do not have injuries that preclude you deploying the 'chute;   

       You do not exit the aircraft at an altitude where you are disabled by cold and/or anoxia before you deploy the chute;   

       You do not land on anything nasty, i.e. sharp pointy rocks, trees, france.
8th of 7, Jul 22 2014
  

       //Widely purchased and used by GA pilots//   

       I'm sure straight pilots use them too.
doctorremulac3, Jul 23 2014
  

       <refuses to rise to bait>
8th of 7, Jul 23 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle