• BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Without giving it any specific thought, ditching over deep water assuming it has big chutes designed to slow it, you’ve now got a capsule that’ll hit the water at a reduced speed, falls vertically so an asymmetric touchdown won’t rip the aircraft apart and a built in life raft to keep the passengers safe until help arrives.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      As an initial theory, it’s solid.

      But then we start asking if this is the best way to do it. Are there alternative ways of achieving the same - or better - safety margins? Could we reduce the risk of deep-water ditching by avoiding flight over deepwater? Could we restrict the distance from shore that aircraft are allowed to fly? Could we require additional redundancy (third, fourth engines, larger fuel reserves) for aircraft flying beyond glide distance to land? (We do both of these. Single engine planes require passengers and crew to be prepared to ditch before leaving glide range to land. Twin engine planes are restricted by ETOPS. Both are strictly limited on how far they can fly from shore.)

      Adding a third engine and 30 additional minutes of reserve fuel would achieve at least the same degree of safety against ditching, and vastly improve safety in all sorts of situation where a detachable cabin would not be beneficial. Do we improve a wide variety of safety measures, or do we have a reason to focus on this one particular type of incident?