English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

26 answers

Easy answer. They are not required on the majority of aircraft. The majority, if not all, commerical aircraft are not in the category of "experimental". Experimental category aircraft are required to have parachutes.

2007-06-21 20:49:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

trained paratroopers need 2 second to get out of the plane. count 3 for untrained people. abasndoning an airliner carying100 passengers would take 300seconds i.e. 5 minutes airliner are not suitable to fly at the speed 200 kmh that is only suitable for bailing out from the side doors. if the plane was flying 5 minutes stable it is better to perform forced landing than spread 100 people some of them probably wounded along a 17 km long trajectory/ if it was flying above mentioned 200kmh speed/.
the circular canopy parachute weights some 7-10 kilograms /20pounds. adding 100*7 means additional 700kgs of weight that would travel all the time unused.
not to talk about the fact that paratroops fly with their parachutes, they dont take them before the jump. how would you take on the parachute in an airliner together with another 100 people trying it???

finally speaking of the "hot seats" they are expensive bulky and need constant care. and are not comfortable at all. plus it would take again some 5 minutes to eject 100 seats with the 2 sec separation.

Man have you ever tried a parachute jump? would you like your elderly paretns to do it? or your 5 years old daughter? Airliners are NOT designed to paradrop people, they dont have large enough doors, they dont have any tail ramps like Herc does they even don't have the anchoring equipment for the parachute trigger. and without the stabiliser, how manz UNTRAINED people do you think would be able to stabilize their free fall prior the parachute opening? yet in their business cloths, skirts? how many of them would hurt their legs when landing in their shoes? I say, well perfomed emergency landing gives the people the best chance for surviving. they will be in one place and that means they will be reached fastest. try searching for stressed first time parajumper with broken ankle along the 17 km long line, in a jungle or forest.

2007-06-21 20:10:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money Money
Also there is just no need. Also using a parachute is not very easy thing to do, and you cant do it at 30,000ft you need to do it around 13,000ft and if the emergency was so bad that parachutes needed to be used there would not be much time to get 300passengers off a plane after 15,000ft. Just impractical and unessary. Also the weight it would add would make flights longer, slower, more fuel would be used. Just a bad idea. This is why they are not needed.
Your chances of being involved in an aircraft accident are about 1 in 11 million. On the other hand, your chances of being killed in an automobile accident are 1 in 5000. Statistically, you are at far greater risk driving to the airport than getting on an airplane. However, the perception is that you have more control over your fate when you are in your car than as a passenger traveling on an airplane. Experience shows otherwise, considering that over 50,000 people are killed on the highways every year. Media coverage would suggest that airline crashes happen every day. Studies have shown one would have to fly once a day every day for over 15,000 years in order to statistically be involved in an aircraft accident"
Flying is very very safe. Don’t worry about terrorists that is the least likely thing to go wrong on a commercial flight in the US these days. Flying in the United States is very safe, there has not been a major airline crash in the US since November of 2001! That is a long time for no major crashes and only on fatality in the last seven years for the Major Airlines in the US.
Even when there is a problem on an airplane, if an engine fails on takeoff or an engine fire etc.. 99% of the time the plane lands safely. Planes these days are amazing piece of technology and the pilots are trained better than ever. If you not afraid to drive in a car you should not be afraid to fly in a plane.
Just sit back relax and try to enjoy the flight. Its one of the safest things you can do much safer than driving a car, walking down the street, or even sleeping in your house. More people have died on North American highways in the year 2006 than the amount of people who have died in powered flight aviation whole 104 year history!

2007-06-22 12:00:08 · answer #3 · answered by Steven H 5 · 0 0

several good reasons

1) the added weight of all those parachutes reduces the overall cargo/passenger capacity and costs money

2) critical phases of flight where accidents usually happen are takeoff and landing. Parachutes are not usable in the short amount of time between onset of problem to landing

3) can you imagine the difficulty in getting 300(+) people into parachutes including elderly, disabled, infants, etc. Then, if you can't get everyone down by parachute, who do you get?

4) The military has made a science of getting 100 soldiers out of an airplane in flight, civilian transportation would have to try and explain to people how to leave the aircraft without sustaining injury. Believe it or not, you don't JUST jump out and float down.

5) Can you imagine the final result of all those inexperienced passengers, some ill, some elderly, some unable to walk, spread over 100 square miles following an aircraft departure?

6) in the majority of aircraft problems, the pilot lands safely an no one is injured. Remeber the airplane that landed a couple years ago in California with it's nose gear stuck turned 90 degrees to the runway. What if they had gotten everyone off that plane in parachutes and then the pilot landed the airplane intact. Imagine the fallout from that decision.

So, if you need more answers than that, guess what, too bad. The bottom line is IT JUST AIN'T FEASIBLE!

2007-06-21 12:49:55 · answer #4 · answered by Joe D 3 · 9 1

Large commuter jets have no way of ejecting or jumping from without contacting the plane, plus, the liability would be enormous for the airline. There is also the expense that would be passed on to the customers, who don't want to pay for something they will never use. Putting parachutes in a plane is admitting that the plane is unsafe. What is the percentage of accidents compared to safe flights? Do some math and you will see that it is a waste of the consumers money.

2007-06-21 12:53:05 · answer #5 · answered by rex_rrracefab 6 · 1 1

A better idea would be to have a large parachute at the tail of the airplane like they do on some military aircraft to slow down during landing. Quite feasible as a last ditch measure to at least offer some drag. Question is how big of a chute would it take?

2007-06-24 13:20:00 · answer #6 · answered by Peter N 1 · 0 0

1 the elderley not going to be able to parachute 2 small children not able to parachute 3. exspence 4. experiance 5. death is almost certian jumping from a jet 6. survival rate is much better going with the plane then parachuting 7. failure of parachute 8. paralyzed people can't 9.decapataion from tail wing or other components of the aircraft 10. death from engine or engine heat

Very sad but today's aircraft are built to break in certian parts preventing even more deaths and saving many if not all lives

Great question

2007-06-21 14:39:16 · answer #7 · answered by Concorde 4 · 3 1

How many answers do you want? This is a bad idea.

Under what circumstances would you have everyone bail out?

There are two kinds of accidents: The ones you survive and the ones you don't. The unsurvivable accidents are of the kind that you don't have the time to get the gear on and get everyone out the door.

And then you have all those people spread out over Greenland or the Pacific Ocean or Nebraska... some in trees, some in water, some on mountain peaks... what then?

This idea doesn't get better the more times you suggest it. :-)

2007-06-21 16:33:23 · answer #8 · answered by Craig R 6 · 2 0

It takes training to know how to put a parachute on, and how to jump. Plus, a parachute is very bulky and cumbersome. You probably could not sit in a seat in coach while wearing a parachute - never mind trying to put one on while the plane is going down and people all around you are panicking. Also, where would the airline store all of those parachutes and, if you did manage to get it on, how would you get to and out of the door to jump?

They are just not practical on a commercial airliner.

2007-06-21 12:58:51 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1 3

They don't put them in cockpits because pilots need to fly the plane. Passengers may be to small to use them or may not know how to, they might be above water so they would be almost useless in this case. But the main reason is that there is not enough time. Approximately 95% of all crashes are at take off or landing.

2007-06-22 00:14:52 · answer #10 · answered by fifa2002worldcupps2 2 · 0 0

cost - weight - size - impracticle
9/10 emergencies land pretty good, if it was bad enough to need a parachute, i dont think you would live long enough to get it out, put it on, que up for an exit and jump - somthing serious would have happened up there, and I dont think 300 parachutes would help :-(

2007-06-23 02:00:26 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers