News1 min ago
Taking A Parachute On A Plane
51 Answers
Hello, I’ve been a keen watcher of AIRCRASH INVESIGATION and have seen enough air crashes to make me weary.
I can’t help but think at the last minutes of a plane crash that if everyone had parachutes lives could be saved.
This has prompted me to look into buying a parachute when traveling abroad.
I have no experience in “ skydiving” but am assuming it’s pull and hope for the best? But better then going down with a plane doing nothing imo.
Can you operate a parachute with no prior experience?
I do understand that plane doors cannot be opened at high altitudes due to pressure but can be at lower altitudes.
I also understand the danger of being sucked into a planes engine but would gladly take that risk if the plane was going to crash.
Are parachutes allowed as hand luggage and would this be allowed or raise eyebrows from security and stop me travelling?
I can’t help but think at the last minutes of a plane crash that if everyone had parachutes lives could be saved.
This has prompted me to look into buying a parachute when traveling abroad.
I have no experience in “ skydiving” but am assuming it’s pull and hope for the best? But better then going down with a plane doing nothing imo.
Can you operate a parachute with no prior experience?
I do understand that plane doors cannot be opened at high altitudes due to pressure but can be at lower altitudes.
I also understand the danger of being sucked into a planes engine but would gladly take that risk if the plane was going to crash.
Are parachutes allowed as hand luggage and would this be allowed or raise eyebrows from security and stop me travelling?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Monkeymagic99. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Also another question is why don’t plane have parachutes as standard? They have lifesavers, oxygen but not parachutes which I find strange as they clearly have ideas of depressurisation and the plane landing in water but not for life preserving if you wanted to jump before a plane crash and to be honest, a life preserver is the last thing you’d need if you crashed on land so why no parachutes?
I see, thanks.
Just came across this via a google search which goes more in depth
https:/
Personally I’m still going to look into it.
It might seem strange but if I’m allowed I’d be happy to wear one when traveling but again I wonder what security and passengers would think of a person wearing one as it would be extremely alarming to many I guess.
Just came across this via a google search which goes more in depth
https:/
Personally I’m still going to look into it.
It might seem strange but if I’m allowed I’d be happy to wear one when traveling but again I wonder what security and passengers would think of a person wearing one as it would be extremely alarming to many I guess.
It takes a fair bit of time to learn how to use a chute, just putting it on takes time. Another point, if the chute is released too soon it will get tangled up on the tail-plane, I've seen that happen. Not a good thing to happen! If the harness is not put on properly it can cause serious damage to you.
Interesting and comprehensive view from my link.
There are several good answers above, but another important thing to consider is that it's impossible to jump out of a commercial airliner (except the 727, which is rarely still found in passenger aviation) while in flight, unless a hole has opened in the fuselage or it has otherwise become depressurized. The doors have to be pulled in to open, which is, for all practical purposes, impossible while the airframe is pressurized. From a safety perspective, the additional risk of allowing the doors to open in flight far outweighs the potential benefit of letting people bail out in the narrow range of circumstances that that would even be possible. This is because it would require the doors to open outward, which opens up the possibility of them blowing out in flight. Back when airplanes were designed that way, several people died from explosive decompression due to a door blowing out. This was a problem both on the DC-10 and on early 747s.
A further issue to consider is the locations of the exits. The reason that it was possible to bail from a 727 is that it had an exit in the tail cone. No other passenger aircraft that I'm aware of has that. Many military cargo planes (like the C-130 you mentioned) do use ramps in the tail, though, and that's where people jump out from in those aircraft. If you try to jump from a side door in a jetliner (which are the only doors that exist in most modern jetliners,) you'll likely be promptly cut in half by the horizontal stabilizers moving through you at 550 mph immediately after stepping out the door. Of course, this would also damage the horizontal stabilizer, which would then quite likely result in the death of everyone still on the plane, due to loss of pitch authority. Of course, if you jump out of a door in front of the wings, you might be killed by a wing or an engine rather than a horizontal stabilizer, but the results are still equally undesirable. Jumping out of side doors is possible (and normal) for the much slower aircraft used for skydiving, but not for a passenger jet moving 550 mph.
I don't have time at the moment to run all of the numbers, but one thing did come to mind that helps in the comparison: terminal velocity. Terminal velocity is the point at which the upward drag on a falling object is equal to the downward gravitational force and, thus, downward acceleration due to gravity stops. Where this provides some insight on this question is in the comparison of forces. Terminal velocity for a human is about 120 mph at low altitude. This means that the wind speed required to equal the gravitational force is approximately 120 mph at low altitude (of course, this can vary depending on the shape and mass of the person in question and their position relative to the airflow.) Since drag is proportional to the square of velocity and linearly proportional to air density, this means that a 550 mph wind at an altitude where air density was roughly 13
1
3
of at the surface would exert a force with a magnitude of about (550120)2(13)≈7
(
550
120
)
2
(
1
3
)
≈
7
times the magnitude of the gravitational force. So, at least initially, you'd be accelerated backwards about 7 times as quickly as you'd be accelerated downwards by gravity in these conditions. Aside from the fact that being accelerated backwards at around 7 Gs is going to hurt, there is a very real possibility of hitting any part of the aircraft that happens to be behind you. Also, as mentioned in a comment below, it would actually be entirely possible to be accelerated upwards (at least briefly) with that much drag, depending on the average angle at which your body is deflecting the wind stream. Another consideration is that the windstream itself will be faster than the true airspeed of the aircraft itself around certain parts of the aircraft, including around the fuselage and above and behind the wings. Furthermore, the airstream is not always exactly parallel with the aircraft
There are several good answers above, but another important thing to consider is that it's impossible to jump out of a commercial airliner (except the 727, which is rarely still found in passenger aviation) while in flight, unless a hole has opened in the fuselage or it has otherwise become depressurized. The doors have to be pulled in to open, which is, for all practical purposes, impossible while the airframe is pressurized. From a safety perspective, the additional risk of allowing the doors to open in flight far outweighs the potential benefit of letting people bail out in the narrow range of circumstances that that would even be possible. This is because it would require the doors to open outward, which opens up the possibility of them blowing out in flight. Back when airplanes were designed that way, several people died from explosive decompression due to a door blowing out. This was a problem both on the DC-10 and on early 747s.
A further issue to consider is the locations of the exits. The reason that it was possible to bail from a 727 is that it had an exit in the tail cone. No other passenger aircraft that I'm aware of has that. Many military cargo planes (like the C-130 you mentioned) do use ramps in the tail, though, and that's where people jump out from in those aircraft. If you try to jump from a side door in a jetliner (which are the only doors that exist in most modern jetliners,) you'll likely be promptly cut in half by the horizontal stabilizers moving through you at 550 mph immediately after stepping out the door. Of course, this would also damage the horizontal stabilizer, which would then quite likely result in the death of everyone still on the plane, due to loss of pitch authority. Of course, if you jump out of a door in front of the wings, you might be killed by a wing or an engine rather than a horizontal stabilizer, but the results are still equally undesirable. Jumping out of side doors is possible (and normal) for the much slower aircraft used for skydiving, but not for a passenger jet moving 550 mph.
I don't have time at the moment to run all of the numbers, but one thing did come to mind that helps in the comparison: terminal velocity. Terminal velocity is the point at which the upward drag on a falling object is equal to the downward gravitational force and, thus, downward acceleration due to gravity stops. Where this provides some insight on this question is in the comparison of forces. Terminal velocity for a human is about 120 mph at low altitude. This means that the wind speed required to equal the gravitational force is approximately 120 mph at low altitude (of course, this can vary depending on the shape and mass of the person in question and their position relative to the airflow.) Since drag is proportional to the square of velocity and linearly proportional to air density, this means that a 550 mph wind at an altitude where air density was roughly 13
1
3
of at the surface would exert a force with a magnitude of about (550120)2(13)≈7
(
550
120
)
2
(
1
3
)
≈
7
times the magnitude of the gravitational force. So, at least initially, you'd be accelerated backwards about 7 times as quickly as you'd be accelerated downwards by gravity in these conditions. Aside from the fact that being accelerated backwards at around 7 Gs is going to hurt, there is a very real possibility of hitting any part of the aircraft that happens to be behind you. Also, as mentioned in a comment below, it would actually be entirely possible to be accelerated upwards (at least briefly) with that much drag, depending on the average angle at which your body is deflecting the wind stream. Another consideration is that the windstream itself will be faster than the true airspeed of the aircraft itself around certain parts of the aircraft, including around the fuselage and above and behind the wings. Furthermore, the airstream is not always exactly parallel with the aircraft
Furthermore, the airstream is not always exactly parallel with the aircraft. It can have an upward component relative to the aircraft around certain parts of the airframe while it almost always has a downward component relative to the aircraft behind the trailing edge of the wings. Also, if the plane itself is descending, there will be an upward component of the airstream relative to the aircraft at almost all points, except maybe right behind the wings. So, long story short, a lot of factors play into this, but things aren't looking up for the prospective jumper.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
News11 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News15 mins ago