• HAL_9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    8 months ago

    That question got me thinking: In which major disaster would there have been time to get people off board and deploy parachutes? Any major disaster I can think of happened so fast or unbeknownst to anyone on board, or in unfavorable conditions for parachutes, i.e. takeoff or landing.

    The only one coming to mind is the Gimli glider and that turned out fine.

    • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s been tons of slow moving air disasters where there would have been time to suit up and jump from a safe altitude. Lots of electrical fires, jammed cables and shoddy repairs over the years.

      • Ziggurat
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Even in relatively slow incident, like Air France 447 or Alaska 226, where there was some minutes before the start of the problem and the crash. When do you take the decision to evacuate ?

        Assuming, you give to pax the same kind of reserve parachute we use when paragliding (light, easy to use, but hard impact, I’m avoiding death/wheelchair but may break a leg). An in flight evacuation would mean a few people killed and many injured. (And even with a regular skydiving parachute, I doubt you’ll do better without any training) at which point, as a plane captain, do you consider that it’s safer to take that risk than trying to land the plane ?

        Let’s go a step further, you’re part of an aviation governing body. How many useless “parachute evacuation” killing some pax do safe more life than preventing a catastrophic crash ?