Why don't airliners have a reliable bail-out mechanism, such as a parachute or ejection seat?

Question

I just read a question on here a few minutes ago about why they don't provide parachutes to passengers on airlines.

It basically boiled down to too cold, not enough time to put it on, too fast.

I wanted to take this time to ask why, if military aircraft, say, an F-16 can have a rocket propelled ejection seat that can operate safely at MACH 1.5, why can't a Boeing 727 have lateral ejection seats?

Put explosive bolts on the side panels, use pneumatics to eject the rows out the side of the plane and once clear, use rockets to ensure enough height for a full chute deployment (assuming a close-to-ground ejection).

Sure it won't save every life, but it will certainly save more. Your comments? Improvments?

Arguments of the parachute:

Not enough time? "The captain has turned on the fasten seatbelt sign." Chute attached to entire row of chairs.

Too high? Free fall for a little while.

Too fast? Deploy the chute to slow down.

Too cold? Frostbite is better than death.

Totally practical...

Answer 1

You've had some excellent answers that gives the practical insights. I'd just touch one area they missed.

Ever wondered why the F-16, or any combat aircraft for that matter, needs an ejection system?

Because there are chances that it might get damaged. The probability of an aircraft being rendered non-airworthy is very very high if it is involved in combat and thats the reason why it needs an escape mechanism. The pilot of an aircraft is a highly valued asset. (Not going into the debate on the value of all human life). One of the reasons why WW-2 Germany lost its air domination is its depletion of skilled pilots. So the F-16 has lots of reasons to protect its pilot.

Compared to the combat aircraft the airliner has almost trivial probability of *needing* an ejection system. Notwithstanding, if someone implements the passenger ejection system, then we would be answering questions from travellers on why the heck they are made to pay extra for hauling the weight of a system that is sure not to be used.

So in short the "answer is not really needed"

Answer 2

You asked why don't they...my first response is why should they?  Commercial airliners operated by western European and North American airlines are the safest method of transportation there is.  The only thing safer may be staying at home in bed..but I'm not even sure about that.

With cost, weight, complexity, training, timing etc. aside, let's look at your proposal of a B727 with sideways-ejecting seats equipped with parachutes.  First of all, you can not compare an F-16 pilot who has years of training to an average passenger, most of whom don't even care to listen to the pre-flight safety briefings.  On top of that, an actual ejection from an F-16 fighter jet commonly ends up with serious life-long injuries despite their training and protective equipment - nomex flight suit, helmet, oxygen, flotation, radios, and survival gear.

In-flight emergencies are almost non-existent.  When's the last time you heard of a commercial airliner with, let's say, a wing that's about to break off?  Almost every accident happens on take-off or landing. Even if there were time to activate them, the ejection seats are going  to do nothing but slam the passengers straight into the ground, or for those ahead of the wing, perhaps crushed under the wing.  The passengers would be much safer inside the aircraft and allow the mass of the aircraft to absorb the impact.

There are ways to improve safety, but you don't need to fix something that's not broke.

Answer 3

Every time a question comes up like this, the author misses one very important fact:

CHILDREN.

Think about that.  They would have to have special children sized seats to survive the ejection process.  Babies would have no hope.

Answer 4

Well, what about cost?

Nobody could afford to fly anymore because the price of a ticket would skyrocket to cover the cost.

Planes don't crash often enough to justify taking those kind of measures.

EDIT: Parachutes would need to be checked and replaced every so often... i'm not sure how often that is, but i know they can't sit forever...paying someone to inspect and replace these would cost lots of money, so its not just the initial cost.

Answer 5

Because think of installing 800 seats on an A380. also think of the ppl on the lower deck; they'll go straight up the aS5s of the people in the upper deck.

On a more conventional 747, the passengers would eject into the air conditioning unit aobve their heads

Answer 6

The only time to leave an airplane in flight is when it's coming apart. That just doesn't happen to modern jet airliners. Ejection systems are unnecessary. It sounds as if you are stating a solution in search of a problem.

Still, it would be a hoot wandering around the countryside rounding up 200-300 passengers scattered by some mass airliner ejection.

Answer 7

every seat would have to be equipped with oxygen masks and the attendants would have to make sure ALL the passengers knew how to use them. And on some of the bigger planes there is a row down the middle how would those seats be ejected?

Answer 8

You have much to learn about altitude physiology, load factors and most importantly to the airlines, economics. How much would you like to pay for a ticket to make the safest form of travel even safer? Of course you wouldn't be making it any safer would you. Do some research and I think you'll see why that is. At least I'd hope you'd see why that is. Jeez.

Answer 9

All of the two previous answers, plus designing such a system as you suggest would require a cabin structure so complex it would be prohibitively expensive, the extra weight of ejection seats would reduce the useful load of the plane (number of passengers carried) to about nil, ejection seats and parachuting both require an extensive amount of training to prevent serious injury or death, and even with proper training ejections result in a high proportion of serious injuries, plus keeping hundreds of seats and passengers safely separated once ejected is impractical, plus passengers do not wear protective helmets and clothing to not only protect them from the elements but the piotentially deadly ejection seats themselves, the deadly effects of high altitude ejection without pressure breathing apparatus, and at least a hundred other reasons. A totally impractical, incompletely thought-out idea.

I applaud you for creative thinking though, but you also have to consider the fact that from January 1982 to March 2001 there were more than 8 BILLION airline passengers transported worldwide (yes, billion!) yet there were only 2,301 fatalities. That's about 120 people killed on average each year, worldwide, with another 348 serious injuries. This amounts to a 0.00003% chance of being seriously injured or killed in a commercial aviation accident. This is far less than any other mode of transportation and you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning twice. With over 6 million auto accidents in the US alone every year, with at least 40,000 fatalities, you should be trying to figure out how to save those people instead.

Answer 10

If a passenger aircraft did have ejection seats then u would find most of the passengers will probably die because they are not trained to take so much g force, secondly they are not trained to cope with high altitude environment were the air is thin and -40C would freeze every1 to death in seconds, 3rdly there is a BIG difference between airpressure on the ground and air pressure at 30k feet.....the passengers will die instantly due to their blood boiling in their bodies!! and lastly imagine over 100 people ejecting at the same time LMAO!! some of them are most likely to crash into eachother in midair.

Answer 11

I have a few points you missed. (1) Untrained people being subjected to this event without warning. (2) Acceleration force required for  3 seats to clear the air frame. (3) The wind blast that they would be subjected to without any protection. (4) The seat belt would offer no protection to the lateral acceleration. Nor would the configuration of the standard A/C seat as you would require harness/suspension to catch the body and support the head.

    I think the only research that has been done on lateral acceleration was done in Canada and was in support of a X-wing fighter.