4 ms·
> Surely it's worth the expense. you'd think the same about parachutes for everyone which could have rescued lives on some of the plane disasters.
by dinkblam 3y ago
> Surely it's worth the expense.
you'd think the same about parachutes for everyone which could have rescued lives on some of the plane disasters.
- crazygringo 3y agoParachutes would barely save any lives. First, commercial air travel is incredibly safe. Second, parachuting requires extensive training which a negligible number of passengers have. It's not like you just jump out of a plane and it works automatically. Not to mention dealing with cold, oxygen deprivation, landing in the middle of the ocean, etc. Third, it's going to take at least a half hour for everyone to put parachutes on and jump out in an orderly fashion. How many aviation accidents have had a half hour of extra time where they already knew they would fatally crash?
- jjtheblunt 3y agoYou just invented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Syst... even though i don't know how that would work on a commercial sized plane.
- nradov 3y agoBallistic recovery parachute systems aren't scalable. The necessary size and weight would be completely impractical for anything much larger or faster than a Cirrus. Commercial air travel is very safe. The few crashes that do occur usually involve flight into terrain, mid-air collisions, or structural break up. Parachutes are ineffective for those failure modes. The parachute on a Cirrus mainly protects against total engine or flight control system failures, which aren't a real concern on airliners.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoWere the 737 Max crashes flight control failures?
- JetSpiegel 3y agoParachutes wouldn't help with that anyway, the crashes were just after take off.