Emergency detachment capsule for airliners. A VERY Kerbal thing.

[Darkona]

I'll just leave a video link so you all can see this magnificent Kerbal approach to saving lives.

 

 

I 

Edited January 17, 2016 by Darkona

[Gaarst]

11 minutes ago, Darkona said:

Kerbal approach to saving lives.

How is this even a thing ?

[rustysocket]

What about the pilots?

[Darkona]

6 minutes ago, rustysocket said:

What about the pilots?

My guess is that they either die heroically or go into the dettachable capsule with everybody else if there's time, after setting a safe collision course for the rest of the plane.

 

[RainDreamer]

Pilots probably have better training than passengers and could conceivably have their own parachute to go skydiving.

But seriously, this idea is so kerbal that I can imagine someone already did this in KSP.

Edited January 17, 2016 by RainDreamer

[Camacha]

Considering aircraft are already incredibly safe and that this adds a huge amount of weight - parachutes, retro rockets, a lot of extra structure, release mechanisms and floats - I cannot see people being too interesting in paying for a marginal improvement for a lot more money. That is not even taking into account that things might very well not become safer if you make them more complicated.

[RainDreamer]

5 minutes ago, Camacha said:

That is not even taking into account that things might very well not become safer if you make them more complicated.

I can already imagine a case where the thing accidently detached and the chute fail to deploy. Without wings, the capsules can't glide down safely either. It can be pretty horrible.

[cubinator]

2 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

But seriously, this idea is so kerbal that I can imagine someone already did this in KSP.

I sometimes do the reverse in KSP, by putting a decoupler and parachutes on the cockpit of an experimental plane, so that if anything goes horribly wrong I can save the pilot.

[cantab]

I'd say it's just too situational. You've got to have the airframe obviously crippled, while the passenger capsule remains hardly damaged. You've got to *know* that the chance of the capsule landing safely is greater than the chance of the whole aircraft being landed safely - and you really want to have that decision taken by a computer to cover for pilot incapacitation. There are myriad ways the capsule could fail, but probably the scariest is if it lands on a structure that cannot take the load and the structural collapse kills people on the ground. The remaining airframe could do the same, and the chance of that could be increased because its aerodynamics sans capsule would be upset.

This system is not going to save people from a controlled flight into terrain, a major cause of accidents. It's not going to help in a runway incursion or runway excursion event, they happen when the plane is already on the ground and are again a major cause of air accidents. It's going to be problematic in any of the raft of scenarios that might damage the capsule landing system: mid-air collision, explosive decompression, uncontained engine failure, cabin fire, shootdown, bomb, and probably others. It's going to be of limited use in a hijacking.

[Zephram Kerman]

It seems to have advantages in normal operation, too. Passengers could be boarded / deboarded at the terminal separately from the rest of the aircraft being fueled / inspected / repaired in an uncongested area.

Also, this makes the passenger area a line replaceable unit, allowing for quick changes to different configurations of seat pitch, amenities, and cargo space without putting the whole plane out of service for days or weeks.

[Guest]

Scott Manley made one in KSP:

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by Guest

[A35K]

This seems to be ignoring most recent trends in aircraft crashes. The majority of recent crashes was caused by loss of control in flight, usually caused in a confusing situation, were the pilots didn't actually realise what was happening until it was too late. If this thing is pilot activated, it wouldn't have saved anyone in these scenarios, and if it is computer activated, what will stop it from getting a wrong reading from a sensor (happens quite a few times, e.g. iced u pitot tubes), and jetissoning the capsule for no reason in the middle of the ocean? Also, the chances of the parachutes or retro-rockets failing are probably higher than anything going wrong on the plane itself. And then, in this thing it doesn't mention weather the pilots are saved or not. If they stay in the cocpkit, then this video is pretty dark, as they show the cockpit section nonchalantly exploding in the background while the pod lands safely! Pilot lives matter!!!

[kerbiloid]

Next step - combine both fuselages into one fuselage and to jettison wings from it.

[Slam_Jones]

On 1/17/2016 at 8:41 PM, rustysocket said:

What about the pilots?

Obviously the pilots have wing suits and jetpacks, so they can do radical stunts while advising the passengers not to panic.  Because, did you see that backflip?  Rad, right?!

 

(No I'm not serious )

[tater]

I saw this story maybe last week... it's sort of absurd. An aircraft having an RUD incident at altitude is almost certainly the result of something nefarious, so any testing should at least involve a detonation first. Of course with the fuselage breached, and a water landing, it seems like over most of the earth you'd be happy to not be dead... then you'd drown. Most other wrecks are as cantab said CFIG incidents, and a chute does no good at that point.

[lajoswinkler]

It's actually pretty dumb. If you can save that much of an airplane, then save the whole airplane. Detach the wings with the fuel.

[Sampa]

awe....the account the video is connected to no longer exists! 

 

[Spacetraindriver]

Lol. Did some research, the fancier your ticket, the less your survival rate.

[Kozak]

On 1/17/2016 at 10:41 PM, rustysocket said:

What about the pilots?

My guess is they have the switch that detaches the cabin in the cabin itself, in the stewardess area. that way the pilots can leave the cockpit and survive.

[magnemoe]

On 17.1.2016 at 2:48 PM, cubinator said:

I sometimes do the reverse in KSP, by putting a decoupler and parachutes on the cockpit of an experimental plane, so that if anything goes horribly wrong I can save the pilot.

Makes more sense, something like this was planned for the B1 bomber but dropped over normal ejection seats. 
Skylon also plan something simlar with an passanger module who can be ejected. 
Note that in both this setting the escape module is far smaller than the plane. For Skylon its an module you add for manned flights.

On an passanger airplane you have to detach most of the plane, it don't make much sense. 

[RizzoTheRat]

20 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Makes more sense, something like this was planned for the B1 bomber but dropped over normal ejection seats. 
Skylon also plan something simlar with an passanger module who can be ejected. 

F-111 uses a system like that, with some seperatrons built in to make sure you get clear of the wreckage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8l79lSjVMg

[magnemoe]

21 minutes ago, RizzoTheRat said:

F-111 uses a system like that, with some seperatrons built in to make sure you get clear of the wreckage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8l79lSjVMg

Did not know, nice. 
Anyway, this makes some sense on supersonic fighter jets and bombers. Even more on spaceplanes because of the speed. 
In all of this settings the module is an tiny part of the plane not the majority of the volume. 

Note that if you manages to make an very lightweight plane with carbon nanotubes or similar you would probably still be better off just dumping the fuel. 
In this setting an parashute to reduce landing speed makes sense,