正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Could this idea work ?

1,256,835 次观看 • 8 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

34 条评论

Wally Nnamani 的头像
Wally Nnamani8 个月前

So it’s fuck the pilots I assume

Niam 的头像
Niam8 个月前

Most crashes happen during takeoff/landing where there isn't enough altitude for those parachutes to even open.

Brett Colby 的头像
Brett Colby8 个月前

I had this idea when I was a kid, I even drew it out and showed my 4th grade teacher. Bitch must of stole it for herself

Mark Estrada 的头像
Mark Estrada8 个月前

It sucks when your plane crashes in low orbit

Andreas Wahl 的头像
Andreas Wahl8 个月前

Nobody is or will ever be working on this. Just an engagement farming video

Kimi Boy 的头像
Kimi Boy8 个月前

No it can't. At least not in 99% of times because plane crashes happen mostly on landing or take off.

GregoryJazz 的头像
GregoryJazz8 个月前

What about the pilots?

Drogonex 的头像
Drogonex8 个月前

What a Boeing 747 looks like at cruise speed from another plane.

Heisenberg 的头像
Heisenberg8 个月前

Pilots be like:

Kyle Davis 的头像
Kyle Davis8 个月前

I don’t see why they couldn’t do this with the whole plane if they can do it with the passenger cabin.

DTC 的头像
DTC8 个月前

A parachute deploying for a 100,000 pound aircraft going 600 mph in an emergency situation, what could possibly go wrong

Hey Jay 的头像
Hey Jay8 个月前

It’s all math. It could work, sure. Not sure about structurally for that design, but it would. There are several options for smaller planes already. But most commercial crashes start at low altitude, which is probably why they haven’t invested in something like this.

Calibism 🇺🇸 的头像
Calibism 🇺🇸8 个月前

95% of aircraft crashes initiate during landing and take off procedures. No time to detach anything. Useless tech. That will just cost making the airplane more, and cost passengers more to fly. In addition, it is a tech that can fail at altitude and detach when there is no crash sequence happening. Parts fail, constantly. They need to keep working towards anti-gravity propulsion. Forget metal. Commercial airliners with 2 or 4 engines; are well built now. If there is an engine failure, they can still land on 1 or 3 engines. Private aircraft; another story.

SYED AQIB SHIRAZI ☀️ 的头像
SYED AQIB SHIRAZI ☀️8 个月前

Yes exactly i always wonder Why cant we create an anti crash airplane design 🤔 Like we can create detachable cabin design..upon danger the cabin can be separated and can save lives of passengers

B.O.S 的头像
B.O.S8 个月前

So pilots are what? Collateral damage? Common man

PwnMaster 的头像
PwnMaster8 个月前

You think cargo space/ bag fees are outrageous now, wait until half of the plane is just a giant safety device for a 1 in a million mishap.

Dabblers Anonymous 的头像
Dabblers Anonymous8 个月前

The pilots be like...

Mecalas🇦🇺 的头像
Mecalas🇦🇺8 个月前

If the powers that be thought the ROI was worth it, this would already be a thing. Playing devil's advocate, consider: - Cost of re-engineering the fuselage for the explosives to detach it safely without the 200+mph winds doing 'naughty things' to it. - Cost of maintenance of 'chutes and floats. - Extra fuel costs per air mile flown due to the extra weight for the emergency gear. - Effective minimum altitude means it doesn't work for on-ground, take-off and landing accidents (which is understood to be the majority of accidents). As someone else in this thread has suggested, perhaps finding something to instantly turn the remaining fuel into non-flammable sludge on impact would save more lives. Embed it in the skin of the fuel tanks? I have no idea. Peace!

Steve Brown 的头像
Steve Brown8 个月前

Statistically most aircraft accidents happen on landing and take off, possibly too low for parachute.

The Black Tucker Carlson Jr 🇺🇸 的头像
The Black Tucker Carlson Jr 🇺🇸8 个月前

So the pilot and crew are going down with the ship?

Dee 的头像
Dee8 个月前

So the pilots are collateral damage ?

Ken 的头像
Ken8 个月前

Put this in the 'stupid ideas that will never work' basket where it belongs.

Blake 的头像
Blake8 个月前

Shes not going to approve of this one.

Michael McMahon 的头像
Michael McMahon8 个月前

So, @Ryanair won’t add Starlink because it MAYBE adds 0.2% to fuel costs, but airlines are going to add thousands of pounds of weight for a detachable cabin? Umm, no.

Rand Simberg 的头像
Rand Simberg8 个月前

In most crashes, it wouldn't because the plane is too low to the ground when something goes wrong, and even it if could, it would vastly increase the cost of the plane and thus ticket prices, for a trivial increase in safety over the current safest means of travel.

BIXIO 的头像
BIXIO8 个月前

lindo si te cae un airbus 330 en el patio

James T. Kirk Douglas 的头像
James T. Kirk Douglas8 个月前

I would recommend using the transporter to beam the passengers safely to land.

Lloyd from Wyoming 的头像
Lloyd from Wyoming8 个月前

No. The additional cost of fuel per passenger, due to the additional weight of the system, would make air travel too expensive. And it wouldn't work close to the ground, so landing/takeoff protection is nil.

Andrew the Millwright 的头像
Andrew the Millwright8 个月前

@grok what percent of plane failures have occurred at an altitude sufficient for this parachute system to even work?

abzolute 的头像
abzolute8 个月前

This is retarded & will never happen. The vast majority of plane crashes develop at low altitude, takeoff & landings. It’s also extremely rare for a situation to happen that would give pilots enough time to react and yeet the passenger cabin.

fred bloggs 的头像
fred bloggs8 个月前

There will be a cost benefit analysis that won't be published. Do they take a chance to save the passengers and scrap the plane or do they take a chance to land the plane costing 3-400 million

Joey Unhedged 的头像
Joey Unhedged8 个月前

@grok Bs or real? Pretty cool if it’s real.

Md Sirajuddin 的头像
Md Sirajuddin8 个月前

Most plane crashes occur during takeoff or landing (low altitude). How will this system work in those situations?

Scott Erocks 的头像
Scott Erocks8 个月前

Well since most planes crash on landing and takeoff….

相关视频