Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics Subject: Re: "A Design Proposal That Would Make Passenger Planes Safe" Message-ID: <968@terak.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 16:57:44 EST Article-I.D.: terak.968 Posted: Tue Jan 7 16:57:44 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 04:45:16 EST References: <196@hropus.UUCP> Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA Lines: 94 Xref: watmath net.aviation:2361 net.politics:12918 > "The reasons people don't survive crashes have been recited ad > nauseum since the 1950's: too high landing and takeoff speeds; too weak > fuselage structural strength; fuel within the fuselage; engines and landing > gear mounted on the fuel-tank structure; seats not connected strongly > enough to keep passengers restrained; seats not turned around (facing the rear) to absorb most of the energy of impact; plastic materials in the > passenger cabin that smoulder and give off deadly gasses. I trust we're talking about airliners here? I don't want *my* seat turned backwards -- how'm I gonna reach the controls that way? :-) Getting serious... there is no question in my mind that the structural design of the seats (and their attachment to the plane) is probably the single biggest contributor to the injury/fatality rate of airplane crashes. The current "norm" is a crime. Facing the seats backward won't help a bit if they fall apart or rip loose from the floor. While I will grant that from a crashworthiness standpoint having backward seats is like "chicken soup, it can't hurt", I don't think it'd help much, either. The primary lethal force in a crash is downward, not forward. You'd get a lot better results from having a controlled-crush seatframe (a la JAARS) than from mounting the seats backwards. And I wouldn't like flying in a backward seat. I must be ignorant about the "deadly gas" issue, because I had thought that this was addressed a long time ago. I know for sure that I can't legally use such materials to reupholster my puddle-jumper. As for fuselage strength, I don't believe that they're too flimsy. They hold up pretty well in a crash. Well, except for that DC-10 that overran the end of the runway at Boston Logan and the front fell off into the water, killing the cockpit crew. Now what to do about fuel... the author of the letter doesn't want it in the fuselage, nor over the landing gear, nor near the engines. Perhaps continuous inflight refueling is the answer? :-) Seriously, it has to go somewhere. I don't think we have an answer yet, and I do think that it is being actively investigated. > "Then why don't we change the design? Why don't we adopt a concept > developed in 1921, one that returns to the all-lifting-surface ideal > by providing a fuselage shaped like a wing section? The vast increase in > lift permits stronger materials to be used; landing and takeoff speeds to > be cut in half; shorter runways, and greater capacity, with reduction > in fuel consumption. Only one teeny little detail that wasn't mentioned. The resulting plane would only be able to go 200-300 mph. Of course, in 1921 they weren't worried about that as a limiting speed :-) With an increase in lift comes an inevitable increase in drag. It is difficult to achieve high speeds with high lift, because drag increases with the square of speed. The only practical way to achieve high speed is to have low drag, and that means low lift. In order to obtain a 150 mph takeoff/landing speed and still keep a 600 mph cruise, airliners require complex arrangements of wing flaps and slats which allow the pilot to effectively change the shape of the wing from a high-lift airfoil (for take-off and landing) to a low-drag airfoil (for cruise). > Shouldn't the world's governments pool their resources > to replace all conventional passenger planes with this truly safe plane > within a year or two? Who could possibly be opposed?" Get the *government* involved? No way. Replace every single airliner in the world (at taxpayer expense)? You gotta be kidding. > [From the person who passed along the letter to the net:] > > Also, what about re-hiring the terminated air-controllers?? "If having some controllers is safe, then having a lot is safer." People seem to believe this. But you'd be hard-pressed to find an accident which would have been prevented if we had more controllers. Controllers cannot do a thing to prevent single-plane accidents (which comprise virtually all aviation accidents). Their job is to keep planes from running into each other. Very few such accidents occur. And when they do occur, far too often the aircraft involved were already under ATC control (e.g. the PSA 727 midair in San Diego a few years ago, and the Cherokee/biz-jet crash a few weeks ago). > I believe they've been severely punished for their actions... It's not a question of punishment. It's like this: the controllers who walked off the job showed, by that action, that they would rather endanger the air traveler than to work within the system to resolve their differences. Anyone with that attitude belongs o-u-t out. I am aware that "working within the system" was unduly difficult. But that is still no excuse for treating the safety of passengers with such indifference. If a person is willing to sacrifice my personal safety merely to increase his clout in a labor dispute, then I refuse to entrust my personal safety to that person. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug