Air bags on Planes?

[apollo2011]

A TechTV story this morning was about whether or not air bags should be placed on airplanes. Currently, only 3 airlines have planes with airbags and they only have them in the front where the person could hit their head on a wall. If the U.S. were to require air bags on planes, it would cost about $100,000 PER PLANE! What do you think?

[Dave]

Considering the amount of money these airline companies make (and indeed the amount of money these planes cost anyway) another $100k isn't going to make a lot of difference. However, whether they have a lot of use or not is debatable; if you're gonna crash into the ground at 100mph+ then an airbag isn't going to help much.

[Dudde]

my sentiments exactly

 

it's not like you're going to hit another plane mid-air and just stop

 

"whew, good thing we had this airbag, otherwise we might've gotten harmed"

"....why am I on the ceiling?"

[YT2095]

not only that but if the airbags deploy on a genuine hitting the floor crash, it could cause more harm than good, especialy when seeking an escape route.

the Sodium Azide used in the deployment is also extremely dangerous and could quite easily be employed by a terrorist to wreak all manor of havok mid flight!

and all the above points are also quite true also!

 

I vote NO WAY!

[Dudde]

also, being trapped on the floor underneath an airbag in a crash would suck

[YT2095]

ewww! hell yeah, esp as they give you just under 90 seconds to get out or die kinda thing

[apollo2011]

dave and dudde:

I think they were mainly talking about cases when they crash landed. They started off by mentioning a crash were a plane lost it's engine (it shut down. They didn't phisically loose it) and they had to crash land and landed a little too hard...

 

But yes, you are right.

[Dave]

Hmm, don't think they'd be much use period tbh.

[Glider]

OK....you're coming into the ground (usually thought of as quite hard) from 38,000 feet (usually considered a long way up) at between 500-600 mph (which most people would agree is quite fast)...and they are considering installing really fast inflating balloons to save your hairdo?

 

Is it just me,

 

 

or the tequilla,

 

 

or has everybody gone f***ing nuts?

 

That makes a smuch sense as those stupoid bloody blow-up vest things they put under the seat. What's the pilot going to to in the event of everything going pants? Aim for a really deep puddle? Under the circumstances (i.e. being a long way up), why the crappy poopy flipping blimminy pants don't they issue parachutes? I mean...call me deranged if you will. but surviving an extremely long fall, to the best of my recollection, usually involves more parachute-related things and less keep-afloat-in-water or bounce-off-hard-things related things. Or is it just me?

[apollo2011]

apollo2011 said in post #7 :

dave and dudde:

I think they were mainly talking about cases when they crash landed. They started off by mentioning a crash were a plane lost it's engine (it shut down. They didn't phisically loose it) and they had to crash land and landed a little too hard...

 

But yes, you are right.

 

As I said in post 7, It was mainly meant as a safety mechanism for small crashes and crash landing. Also, there was also the possibility that they would only be placed where there was a wall the person could fly into. Bat as I told dave and Dudde, You are right. ;-)

[fafalone]

I'd much rather have PARACHUTES on planes... seriously, I don't understand why they don't have parachutes on planes.

[gene]

THere are too many passengers....

[fafalone]

First of all, no.

 

Second of all, even if there were, some people would get out, and some is better than none.

[Dudde]

people would fight over the parachutes like hyenas over the last zebra eye-ball

 

nobody would get out

[Sayonara]

I think the prospects of being smashed on the wing or tail, or pulled through a jet engine, are slightly more off-putting than having to scrabble a bit for a parachute.

[Cheetah]

Doesn't it require at least a bit of training to be able to get down safely with a parachute?

 

I doub't the stewards could do it while showing the emergency exists right before takeoff

[fafalone]

If there was a parachut under every seat then everyone would have one. And I for one would certainly prefer trying my luck at parachuting with a 5-minute pre-flight instruction than trying to survive the plane crashing.

[Dudde]

good points

 

those deep pockets are going to be of much use to you now, you can help pay for the parachutes

[apollo2011]

I'm with fafalone. They could even put them inside the water floatation devices to save space.

 

Also, as technology advances, they could headphones with a recording to walk you through the process. Just my thoughts.

[mooeypoo]

The only word I think about right now is:

WHAT?!?!

 

If the situation for an airbag arises on an aircraft - it's too late, and it probably won't work.

 

I can actually imagine the pilot go "AAAAAAAAA we're gonna crash into that cloud!!"

 

Err.. sorry for being cynical but it just sounds like if the plain is is in a situation that has such a huge "danger" to need airbag - it won't matter anyways, the entire plain would go down.

 

Those were 30 seconds of sarcasm from mooey.

 

be well

 

~mooeypoo

[recycle2011]

Check this out:

[TonyMcC]

Firstly there are crashes which simply are not survivable. Most survivable crashes (of large planes) are where the plane remains pretty much intact and slides along the ground before coming to a stop. In this situation although there may be fierce deceleration there may not be a sudden jolt. Car air bags require quite a jolt to set them off. It seems to me that an air bag may not inflate in many survivable crashes. Also in the cramped conditions most airline passengers have to endure,the air bags, if they inflated, could hinder rapid exit from an aircraft that may be on fire and rapidly filling with smoke.

Whenever I flew as a passenger in British Air Force planes (VC10's in my time) all passenger seats faced the rear of the aircraft so that in a survivable crash you would not be thrown forward but the deceleration would press you into the soft, but supporting, seat back. I believe that civilian passengers would shy away from rear facing seats, but once in the air it made very little difference.

Edited June 24, 2011 by TonyMcC

[CoBases]

There must be a reason why there is no airbags in places

 

Maybe there is only little or no percentage to reduce injuries. There must be some research on this topic, because airbags are widely used for decades already and don't think Boeing or Airbus haven't done any research on this

[Marat]

I suspect that the airline industry does not want to do anything to alarm passengers by reminding them of the possibility that the plane may crash, since this will discourage air travel, so they avoid taking some obvious safety measures which would serve as negative advertising. For example, it was long ago established that survival in plane crashes could be improved if the seats all faced backwards, but airlines have never done this, perhaps because it would just highlight the potential danger being addressed.

[JohnB]

perhaps because it would just highlight the potential danger being addressed.

 

Perhaps it is because a lot of people don't like to travel facing backwards? I know a number of people who get travel sick unless they are facing the direction of travel. Humans are funny creatures, we prefer to be in a position to see trouble coming and as aircraft rarely reverse into hills.......

 

A point on airbags or parachutes. On a purely logical basis it would be better to jump without a parachute than ride the plane down. Hitting the ground in the plane at 400 mph is not survivable however terminal velocity for a free falling person is 120 mph and is possibly survivable. If over water it is definitely survivable. Terminal V is reached some 5.4 seconds after clearing the aircraft so it doesn't matter if you jump from 300 feet or 30,000 ft, the speed is the same.