Why Don't Commercial Air Planes Have electable passenger and crew compartments?

Question

It just seems to me that when we are capable of spending billions upon billions of dollars for space ships that have in the past landed safely in the ocean by parachute, that it would be quite simple to design the entire passenger compartment including cockpit of large commercial airliners to have with in there design a device to separate the passengers and crew safely in the event of an extreme emergency, or eminent crash saving the lives of all of the persons on board.

Also with the sophistication of current computer systems, the planes could be programmed to attempt to guide the remaining aircraft to a safe designated unpopulated crash site on land, or even more preferably in the ocean.

The cost would be negligible with respect to mass design.

I am very interested to know what you think.

Please forgive the heading it was intended to read

Why Don't Commercial Air Planes Have Ejectable Passanger and Crew Compartments?

Answer 1

I have often asked myself how this can be done, and why it is not done.

Small aircraft already can do this, something so simple that works. Imagine the difference between plummeting to your death knowing your dead OR knowing your going to live. Check out this vid...................
http://brsparachutes.com/Movies/CNN_OFF_AIR.wmv

This is probably even possible with smaller commercial propeller aircraft.

Now to the big boys, 737's and the like. It would be great to to have BRS or multiple lifting body capusles, or whatever we can dream up. I think this is entirely possible to accomplish in this day and age.

Your question is one of "we can do it, so why dont we"? Why dont we smart people do this to save lives? Well, we are too damn cheap and dont want any inconvenience in our established ways. As mentioned above, the money (cost of development, implementation, maintenance) and the fact that the characteristics of the aircraft it is on will be forever changed (less range, etc.). Basically it would be a pain in the *** - but it would probably save lives - and again entirely possible.

If I had the choice to pay more for a ticket on a plane like this, I might do it. If my family were on the plane, I would do it. I think most people would rather have a terrifying ride and live with injuries besides a terrifying ride before certain death.

Unfortunately this belongs in a perfect world.

Good question!

Answer 2

Bad idea. Commercial aircraft rarely if ever crash. When they do it's usually on take off or landing , the aircraft is really close to the ground
So at either zero altitude or an altitude under 100' The pilot makes the decision to eject the fuselage w/o the rear control surfaces or the wings. Explosive bolts initiate the sequence and then powerful rocket motors propel the entire assembly upwards extering huge G-forces on passengers who have never been trained for this to happen and are using the wrong seats, wrong belt configuration and the wrong clothing
Those who survived the initial launch will now have to survive a parachute landing with a cabin in chaos . Meanwhile the remains of the aircraft just carrened down the runway doing God knows how much damage to people and property. Remind me , how many people did you want to save ?

Answer 3

For a system to be worth implementing, 1) It must be feasible, 2) it must be useful all the time, or at least "most of the time", and 3) It must be infallible, or at least as close to it as we can make it,

Regarding 1) A space CAPSULE can land by parachute. How big is a space capsule? Even a space capsule needs three HUGE parachutes. Something as big as a space shuttle (which is STILL smaller than a 747) cannot land by parachute. There is NOT EVEN ejection seats for the shuttle crew in the space shuttle. And talk about cost, you'd think they'd try to save the shuttle, which costs a lot more than airliners. And astronauts are worth even MORE than that due to training and such. Conclusion: Your system is unfeasible, PERIOD.

Regarding 2) 90+% of the crashes occur at take-off or landing. So a system that works at altitude is useful LESS THAN 10% of the time. Assume it will work at all. That makes your system worthless.

Regarding 3) Your system is too complicated and will not pass real-world reliability test. ONE US aircraft used a "capsule" eject system, the F/B-111, now retired. When ejection sequence is triggered, a "guillotine" charge separates the crew compartment from the fuselage. It was deemed too complicated and never used again, in the whole world. Modern fighters use ejection seats instead. It is simple, it is tested, it works fine.

Answer 4

Why are people so obsessed with airplane accidents, but care so little about car crashes. Tens of thousands more die every year of car crashes, and it would be a lot easier to do what you're suggesting for a 4,000lb car than for a 750,000lb airplane. Even a small military vehicle takes about 8 parachutes and special palleting to cushion it for short drops from a plane, and still they often get damaged. It simply isn't feasible.

I gather that you have no experience in aviation and do not fully understand how complex large aircraft actually are and what the requirements would be to even enact such a program. It would be neither simple nor inexpensive.

As for the cost, it would be astronomical, not negligible. Tens upon tens of millions of dollars went into the redesign and installation of cockpit doors after 9/11, and that was a simple design change. The FAA requires higher standards than you might expect. This "mass design" couldn't be done en mass as each airplane is different. Every model of aircraft from every aircraft manufacturer would have to be redesigned, taking into account that every operator of that airplane model has different configurations, many having several configurations in their fleet, and this would have to work no matter the configuration or load.

The aircraft gets its combination of light weight for its size and strength from the monocoque construction of its fuselage, and this would have to change to make portions seperable, thus adding tremendous complexity and, the bane of all aircraft, weight. Not to mention that the system would have to be proven and tested to work reliably at any altitude, temperature, or humidity level the aircraft might expect. Wiring, air conditioning, mechanical systems, etc., would have to be changed to break away when the system actuated. Seats would have to be redesigned, overhead bins redesigned, interior panels redesigned, etc., etc., etc. There is simply too much to envision. It would not work on that scale.

You are a million times more likely to die in a car wrech on the way to or from the airport than be killed in a plane crash.

Answer 5

I'll bet that we possess the technology to build an entirely new generation of aircraft from the ground up with breakaway compartments to increase survivability. Just like anything it would have to be tested and improved along the way untill acceptable.The cost really would be inconceivable though. Just look at what it costs to develop and build current aircraft. A great idea though.

Answer 6

While you have made a fairly long post by most standards, it is grossly over-simplified. Can you imagine the loads and requirements for an ejector based system for a 747 with 350 people? Its not just related to cost, but being able to achieve flight in the first place with the weight penalties.

Leave this sort of thing to those that understand it.

Answer 7

because then the passengers would sue when they realized that nobody was driving - kinda an artifical Rapture that the Evangelicals believe - you would have to have ejectable passenger compartments - then the dogs & cats in the baggage compartments would sue - and you would have to provide ejectable cargo compartments ..you just cant win ..

Answer 8

It's cheaper to pay court awards to the victim's families than design a plane like that. i think that's a great idea though.

Answer 9

Weight, cost and liability.