Why Don’t Planes Carry Parachutes?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 25 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 1,5 тис.

  • @tzkelley
    @tzkelley 7 місяців тому +4426

    Way back in the day I was an instructor pilot and flew a T-38 (old supersonic trainer) to a civilian airport. The plane broke and I had to take a commercial flight home and was told to bring my parachute back with me. I got on the plane with my helmet, parachute, flight suit, etc. and the pilot looked at me and said "what, you don't trust me?"

    • @jackgibsxxx0750
      @jackgibsxxx0750 7 місяців тому +123

      😂😂😂😂😂😂

    • @blockgqmer
      @blockgqmer 7 місяців тому +146

      Lmfao

    • @maverick9708
      @maverick9708 7 місяців тому +67

      Best comment 🤣

    • @murdercom998
      @murdercom998 7 місяців тому +46

      T38 ain't old ur old! and the b52 is old but in all fairness my mother is old

    • @tzkelley
      @tzkelley 7 місяців тому +127

      @@murdercom998 All three are old, unfortunately! :) The T-38 entered service in 1959.

  • @zacharyh.1399
    @zacharyh.1399 7 місяців тому +1999

    6:53 There's a really good reason the TSA lets you bring a parachute on the plane: us parachuters like to travel to other places to skydive sometimes.

    • @CerberusTenshi
      @CerberusTenshi 7 місяців тому +264

      It's also not a dangerous item, so there is no reason to ban it from being taken on an airplane.

    • @lasersailor6684
      @lasersailor6684 7 місяців тому +42

      “Us parachuters”? I don’t think you are a skydiver

    • @genentropy
      @genentropy 7 місяців тому +4

      Thank you for writing this, I left a similar comment.

    • @AtteFi
      @AtteFi 7 місяців тому +65

      And we'd really rather keep it within sight instead of letting TSA and luggage handlers do who knows what to it while it's in checked luggage.

    • @medleyshift1325
      @medleyshift1325 7 місяців тому +27

      I check the paraglider because it packs up real well in the harness with the reserve parachute. It'd be kinda Ironic to die in plane crash with a parachute in the hold lol.

  • @mirrenboarish
    @mirrenboarish 7 місяців тому +1540

    Redundancy, 5:37 "every critial system is going to be at least double or triple redundant." Except of course MCAS, which Boeing decided could rely on a single sensor because it saved them money.

    • @TimeLemur6
      @TimeLemur6 7 місяців тому +149

      It was also more of a bandaid than an actual feature, which probably contributed to the lack of redundancy.

    • @h8GW
      @h8GW 7 місяців тому +171

      That wasn't as bad as a problem as them not telling pilots about MCAS AT ALL during transition training because they thought it would save the airlines money.
      My hypothesis is that countries with stronger pilots' unions immediately smelled the BS and those unions advised their pilots to learn about MCAS independently.

    • @odobenus159
      @odobenus159 7 місяців тому +31

      Exactly what I was thinking. Video is more like "yeah there's nothing you can do, you're doomed" than it is "flying is safe you don't need a parachute" .🤣

    • @jimsvideos7201
      @jimsvideos7201 7 місяців тому +7

      It took data from one specific sensor, but there are two of that _type_ of sensor aboard.

    • @a_a7287
      @a_a7287 7 місяців тому +18

      Boeing needs to be fined HEAVILY.

  • @user-op8fg3ny3j
    @user-op8fg3ny3j 7 місяців тому +5754

    Because the last time a pilot brought a parachute onboard, he kamikazed the plane for a ridge wallet sponsorship

    • @arcticthehunter7099
      @arcticthehunter7099 7 місяців тому +69

      What?

    • @birdnerd9437
      @birdnerd9437 7 місяців тому +227

      Man, I forgot about that one.
      I think we'd all like to forget.

    • @AlkalineGamingHD
      @AlkalineGamingHD 7 місяців тому +340

      @@arcticthehunter7099 Its a reference to the Trevor Jacob plane crash story

    • @ArchusKanzaki
      @ArchusKanzaki 7 місяців тому +32

      @@AlkalineGamingHDfirst time I knew about this story. Damn.

    • @EEEEEEEE
      @EEEEEEEE 7 місяців тому

      E‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎

  • @starlmo
    @starlmo 7 місяців тому +4425

    As a former paratrooper don’t forget to jump behind the engines

    • @ashaffold
      @ashaffold 7 місяців тому +205

      Depends on a plane. If you’re flying Il-76, then you jump IN FRONT of the engines

    • @bigmike9128
      @bigmike9128 7 місяців тому +82

      Was just gonna comment ,look at all the training paratroopers go through just to do basic line jumps.

    • @juzoli
      @juzoli 7 місяців тому +64

      Did you learn it the hard way?:)

    • @EEEEEEEE
      @EEEEEEEE 7 місяців тому +2

      ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎E

    • @EEEEEEEE
      @EEEEEEEE 7 місяців тому +1

      ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎E‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎

  • @Swordsman1425
    @Swordsman1425 7 місяців тому +634

    One other thing that he didn't mention: You can't open the exterior door at 35,000 feet. Unless the plane has already been depressurized and somehow you're not dead, those doors are designed to move inward before turning open. Due to the nature of air pressure being higher inside the plane than outside, this would make it impossible for a person to open the door at that high altitude while the plane is pressurized, because all that pressure is pushing out, thus making the door going inward not possible since there's very little pressure on the outside pushing in. Some crazy passengers have tried to open the emergency door mid-flight and all of them could not do it.

    • @ignis_32
      @ignis_32 7 місяців тому +51

      All that thanks to DB Cooper, most possibly.

    • @sonoftheway3528
      @sonoftheway3528 7 місяців тому +27

      Ok just jump out when it's lower?

    • @Bob-the-1-and-only-blob-fish
      @Bob-the-1-and-only-blob-fish 7 місяців тому +23

      @@sonoftheway3528do you have the force?! You’re able to control how low planes are when they crash? That’s so cool 😮

    • @slyseal2091
      @slyseal2091 7 місяців тому +92

      @@Bob-the-1-and-only-blob-fish There's an argument to be made here, and it's not the one you made. I can in fact predict with 100% accuracy where the plane will crash: on the ground. He suggests doing it above ground, but below untenable pressure.

    • @Bob-the-1-and-only-blob-fish
      @Bob-the-1-and-only-blob-fish 7 місяців тому +2

      @@slyseal2091 amazing move

  • @Syunnnnnnn
    @Syunnnnnnn 7 місяців тому +1939

    3:42 and this is why i strap 50kg weights too myself whenever I am flying, get my moneys worth

    • @bagseys
      @bagseys 7 місяців тому +83

      you are insane and i love it

    • @Syunnnnnnn
      @Syunnnnnnn 7 місяців тому +94

      @@bagseys i do get additional screening every time but it's worth it

    • @illpunchyouintheface9094
      @illpunchyouintheface9094 7 місяців тому +68

      That’s why I’ve fatten my self up. Making this god damn plane suffer for daring to carry my 200kg ass

    • @EEEEEEEE
      @EEEEEEEE 7 місяців тому

      ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎E‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎

    • @Alacrity23688
      @Alacrity23688 7 місяців тому +56

      It is frustrating, that fat people don't have to pay more than me, so I always make sure to stuff my coat pockets with used batteries etc to be as heavy as possible and cost the airline more fuel!!!111

  • @genentropy
    @genentropy 7 місяців тому +190

    Skydiver here. TSA lets us bring parachutes on board because we like to travel with our rigs to different countries sometimes. It's usually better to check it, but it's very expensive gear so some people naturally do not want just leave in the airlines hands and hope for the best,

    • @rapid___
      @rapid___ 7 місяців тому +17

      Yeah, I don't trust my $5-10k skydiving rig to be a checked bag when I've gotten bags full of clothes lost by them before.
      And they definitely won't reimburse you for the full price if they lose it. I think the max reimbursement is like 2k?

    • @mikiqex
      @mikiqex 7 місяців тому +1

      @@rapid___ There's a video about lost luggage with AirTag, which concludes for the handling company it's better option (easier? cheaper? quicker? all of the above?) just to reimburse you than actually look for the lost item - even if you kinda know where to look.

    • @rapid___
      @rapid___ 7 місяців тому +3

      @@mikiqex please read the 2nd half of the message you're replying to. :)

  • @ZetaPyro
    @ZetaPyro 7 місяців тому +315

    No mention of D. B. Cooper? He hijacked a 727 and managed to successfully parachute out of it, after instructing the pilot to fly at low altitude, low speed, and with an unpressurized cabin.

    • @DabbertjeDouwe
      @DabbertjeDouwe 7 місяців тому +154

      To be fair: as far as i recall we don't know if Cooper survived his jump.

    • @Joshimuz
      @Joshimuz 7 місяців тому +135

      This plane had a rear stair door, which is probably the best possible design you could have for such a feat (and no modern airliners have anymore). And yeah also we have no idea if he actually survived or not.

    • @DabbertjeDouwe
      @DabbertjeDouwe 7 місяців тому +7

      @@Joshimuz Now *that* would have indeed be interesting to have heard in this video

    • @d.b.cooper
      @d.b.cooper 7 місяців тому +20

      For a minute there, I thought everybody forgot. 😉

    • @WyvernYT
      @WyvernYT 7 місяців тому +7

      It's said this stunt got the CIA to call up Boeing and ask about acquiring a 727 of their own - and no, they didn't tell Boeing why they wanted an airliner with a jump door.

  • @olafp.3673
    @olafp.3673 7 місяців тому +539

    Oh no, sam found a way to talk about planes again

  • @someperson957
    @someperson957 7 місяців тому +607

    Don't forget Sam from jetlag the game is technically the same too

    • @MechBlank
      @MechBlank 7 місяців тому +60

      this is false propaganda

    • @LRM12o8
      @LRM12o8 7 місяців тому +92

      No he isn't! That Sam actually has a body whereas Sam from HAI and Sam from Wendover are just disembodied voices. Very different people!

    •  7 місяців тому

      I heard they are like cousins or something.

    • @mayab.8070
      @mayab.8070 7 місяців тому +2

      sam from jet lag is the person that the disembodied voices of hai and wendover same drive when they have to go to events

  • @DannerBanks
    @DannerBanks 7 місяців тому +418

    An autopilot becoming evil is something that never crossed my mind

    • @bradjohnson482
      @bradjohnson482 7 місяців тому +113

      737 Max.

    • @imveryangryitsnotbutter
      @imveryangryitsnotbutter 7 місяців тому +24

      I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

    • @subduedreader5627
      @subduedreader5627 7 місяців тому +24

      That is kind of what happened to Qantas Flight 72.

    • @jimhalpert6938
      @jimhalpert6938 7 місяців тому +11

      Wait till they introduce AI autopilots 😬

    • @maverick9708
      @maverick9708 7 місяців тому +21

      737 max 8:"*Allow me to introduce myself*"

  • @dannileigh6426
    @dannileigh6426 7 місяців тому +82

    HAI: Everything on a plane is double or triple redundant
    Boeing: Hold my beer...

  • @njdevilku1340
    @njdevilku1340 7 місяців тому +135

    6:01 That's why Boeing connected the system that caused two 737 MAX planes to crash to a single angle of attack sensor that said they were in a stall!!!

    • @kjh23gk
      @kjh23gk 7 місяців тому +40

      Don't worry, the CEO at the time got a golden parachute.

    • @Wafflecombo54
      @Wafflecombo54 7 місяців тому +1

      MCAS sensor

  • @Psy500
    @Psy500 7 місяців тому +51

    The big issue is that the time it would take for an airliner to have its passengers jump is far longer then a crippled airliner could stay stabilized for that without the airliner also being in good enough shape to go for a controlled crash landing.

    • @Libroer
      @Libroer 7 місяців тому +4

      This is the most reasonable statement in this entire conversation, video included. Except cost… that’s probably the real reason…

    • @tony-does-stuff
      @tony-does-stuff 2 місяці тому +1

      People can barely buckle their seatbelts without assistance. I seriously doubt they'd get a parachute on properly in time. Unless you're in the aisles nearest the doors, you're not making it out if people had to put on parachutes.
      Just like when you walk onboard and you see the big exit door seats full of the worst people you would want to help out in an emergency. Airlines have stopped asking if those people are able-bodied and willing to help in an emergency, they know most are not able and don't care, they just say yes to keep the big seat.

    • @seraphina985
      @seraphina985 29 днів тому

      Indeed, also this would require the same degree of control as you need to execute an emergency landing so if the plane is flying normally enough to allow people to parachute out it is also flying normally enough to make a controlled emergency landing. Hell even if that landing is in the form of ditching om the on water it is still likely to be way more survivable than letting untrained unqualified individuals jump out of it.

  • @kevingreene1514
    @kevingreene1514 7 місяців тому +50

    Technically commercial airliners aren't sealed either. They're just sealed *enough* that the extra air being pumped in the by pressurization system can maintain a pressure equal to roughly 6-8k' despite all the air that's constantly leaking out.

  • @donchaput8278
    @donchaput8278 7 місяців тому +69

    The parachutes on planes are for the planes, not people. Some training planes have emergency plane parachutes to ease the crash. They are usually bright and can be plainly seen by rescuers looking for the plane. In a case like that, hopefully there would be plains available to land the plane in.

    • @solracer66
      @solracer66 7 місяців тому +12

      All Cirrus aircraft have parachutes and just within the last few months someone locally had to use theirs when they had an engine failure on climb out and had the choice of either deploying the chute over land or ditching in Lake Washington.

    • @dudebehinddude2967
      @dudebehinddude2967 7 місяців тому +1

      plainly said!

    • @counterfit5
      @counterfit5 7 місяців тому +2

      ​@@dudebehinddude2967planely

    • @solracer66
      @solracer66 7 місяців тому +5

      This could be an idea for a follow-up video, “Why Planes Do Carry Parachutes”…

    • @moteroargentino7944
      @moteroargentino7944 7 місяців тому +9

      Yeah, but those are small, light aircraft. A passenger plane would need a *massive* parachute that would severely limit the amount of people and cargo it could carry, besides being useless most of the time given in take off and landing there wouldn't be enough altitude to deploy them.
      Small single engine private planes are more susceptible to both mechanical and human error, therefore a parachute makes (a bit) more sense.

  • @jacobswift
    @jacobswift 7 місяців тому +98

    Ok but WHY don’t the planes themselves have singular gigantic parachutes?

    • @tomstravels520
      @tomstravels520 7 місяців тому +18

      Because that wouldn't be enough. The heaviest object that's ever been safety lowered to the ground was about 40 tonnes. A 737/A320 is about that empty, with pax and fuel you're talking between 60-80/90 tonnes

    • @vonder4479
      @vonder4479 7 місяців тому +47

      Use three parachutes then

    • @Phantisma09
      @Phantisma09 7 місяців тому +12

      This guy asking the big brain questions

    • @Mygg_Jeager
      @Mygg_Jeager 7 місяців тому +5

      Big Brain hours lmfao

    • @samsonkj6557
      @samsonkj6557 7 місяців тому +19

      ​@@tomstravels520nonsense. If 4 penguins can land a plane safely with parachutes, I think we can too

  • @hydra70
    @hydra70 7 місяців тому +73

    Now imagine after the jump, having to track down and recover hundreds of potentially injured and unconscious passengers spread over hundreds of square miles of who knows what kind of terrain.

    • @melainekerfaou8418
      @melainekerfaou8418 7 місяців тому +7

      Indeed. I thought the video would also talk about search & rescue. Assume everyone survived the depressurization, knew how to put on their parachute, jumped and made to the ground. Even considering a generous rate of one jump per second, that's 5 whole minutes to empty a wide-body jetliner. At 1000 km/h, this will mean that the passengers will be spread out over more than 80 km. That's not 80 km of paved road or even the Appalachian Trail. Statistically, it's 80km of ocean, desert, jungle, or tundra. It'll take much much longer for the rescue operations to find everyone, compared to keeping everyone on-board then trying an emergency landing or ditching and having everyone in the same place.

    • @SVSXXVW
      @SVSXXVW 5 місяців тому +1

      yeah i'm with you. i guess human life isn't worth that much. especially when it's a family member's.

    • @LarryJL
      @LarryJL 4 місяці тому

      Yes! If only they had location tracking devices that work almost anywhere in the world and could also make phone calls.

    • @hydra70
      @hydra70 4 місяці тому

      @@LarryJL This person has never left the city.

    • @LarryJL
      @LarryJL 4 місяці тому

      @@hydra70 I was in the army. Never lost cell service.

  • @georgegonzalez2476
    @georgegonzalez2476 7 місяців тому +749

    There's another reason: more people will die if planes have parachutes. That's because ticket prices would have to go up like 10% or thereabouts. If you study consumer behavior, a few percent of people will instead drive rather than fly at those higher prices. And guess what-- driving is thousands of times more hazardous than flying. So more people would die if planes had parachutes. Weird, but perfectly logical.

    • @EEEEEEEE
      @EEEEEEEE 7 місяців тому +6

      E

    • @8stormy5
      @8stormy5 7 місяців тому +35

      Right, and that's the real next step of "lower margins mean...". It means that, for some passengers, the cost (price) of flying raises to a point where they'd now no longer fly. Which is bad for business AND for the customers.

    • @solracer66
      @solracer66 7 місяців тому +7

      @@8stormy5 Only if folks still leave their house, with the price of fuel these days driving any further than the local grocery store isn't affordable (and frankly given the price of groceries these days even that short drive isn't affordable either).

    • @cactusmann5542
      @cactusmann5542 7 місяців тому +12

      People keep quoting the "statistic" that planes are safer, but at this point I am certain it is out of content and made by boing....

    • @100beep5
      @100beep5 7 місяців тому +68

      ​@@cactusmann5542It's not that planes are safe (they are, relatively), it's that driving is really dangerous.

  • @richardwakefield5902
    @richardwakefield5902 7 місяців тому +40

    I'm LITERALLY waiting in an airport to get on a 737 to houston as I'm watching this. What the hell, I feel like I'm being watched LMAO

  • @jimsvideos7201
    @jimsvideos7201 7 місяців тому +192

    There's also the question of where you would land, having no survival, flotation, or communication equipment.

    • @EEEEEEEE
      @EEEEEEEE 7 місяців тому +3

      E

    • @swankshire6939
      @swankshire6939 7 місяців тому +13

      If you fell out the the sky survived the fall and managed to have a parachute I don't think you'd care too much about where you landed.

    • @j134679
      @j134679 7 місяців тому +41

      @@swankshire6939 that is assuming you end up on land

    • @bubbledoubletrouble
      @bubbledoubletrouble 7 місяців тому

      @@j1346792/3 of routes are over land, so that's a decent assumption

    • @TheNixie1972
      @TheNixie1972 7 місяців тому +26

      @@swankshire6939 Yes you do. When you break a leg on impact you will need emergency services within minutes. If you are unhurt: how good are your survival skills to survive outside of civilization for more than two hours? two days? Do you have water, food, a blanket shelter against rain/snow/wind? Are there any dangerous animals on your landing spot? You really wish to be found by rescue services and for that your landing spot is very important.

  • @marc-andreservant201
    @marc-andreservant201 7 місяців тому +95

    Also, even mechanical failures that occur during cruise are likely survivable.
    If the plane is still controllable it can crash at low speed on a corn field or ditch in the Hudson river. If you're in the brace position with your seatbelt on, your odds of survival are better when you stay in your seat vs bailing out and getting sucked into a 3,000 RPM turbine, even if there is a 100% probability that the pilots can't make it to an airport.

    • @bocahdongo7769
      @bocahdongo7769 7 місяців тому

      And still higher than you somehow got parachute and pretending to be in Warzone

    • @toolbaggers
      @toolbaggers 7 місяців тому +6

      3000 rpm turbine? This isn't a lazy V8. 3000 rpm is way less than even idle.

    • @ignis_32
      @ignis_32 7 місяців тому +5

      I do not know what happens in US, but lowcosters in my part of the world have so little legspace for economy class, that I would not be able to get into brace position whatever I do. Seat before me takes that space where I am supposed to lean, i would have to seat vertically in the case of crash landing, and farewell my beloved spine. Seatbelts are only for a sudden turbulence now, I guess.

    • @nickmonks9563
      @nickmonks9563 7 місяців тому +4

      Yup. A well managed plane crash is likely to be terrifying, uncomfortable, and possibly result in minor injury...but a well managed plane crash is the crash you are most likely to survive.

    • @seraphina985
      @seraphina985 29 днів тому

      It is also worth bearing in mind that if the plane is not in a condition to make a controlled decent it also isn't in any position to fly a stable path for long enough to have hundreds of people jump from it either. You are not getting anyone managing to jump out if the plane is completely out of control in a spinning vertical dive or whatever.

  • @DanielLCarrier
    @DanielLCarrier 7 місяців тому +325

    I think it's funny that so many people think planes should have parachutes, but nobody wears a helmet in the car.

    • @niklasriemenschneider4197
      @niklasriemenschneider4197 7 місяців тому +22

      Fighter pilots kinda have a parachute, and racing drivers usually wear helmets ;)

    • @AbeFarm-wl8ij
      @AbeFarm-wl8ij 7 місяців тому +13

      Common cars are equipped with airbags and seatbelt.

    • @masterseeker360
      @masterseeker360 7 місяців тому +3

      You dont fly thousands of feet in the air and having a crash is usually not fatal because you have a seatbelt and airbags

    • @Libroer
      @Libroer 7 місяців тому +4

      This is ridiculous bro. Non-equivalent situations entirely. Driving is an everyday experience taking up a significant portion of your time. Considering the odds of getting in a fatal crash and the discomfort and impracticability of wearing a helmet every time you drive, I don’t think it’s actually that interesting a fact at all l. Also, when the accident begins you are already on the ground, so there isn’t the increased certainty of fatality as there is with an airplane crash, should it ensue.

    • @DanielLCarrier
      @DanielLCarrier 7 місяців тому +18

      @@Libroer It's not that you drive more and thus you're more likely to die from driving. If you're going to be driving for an hour vs flying for an hour, driving is still more dangerous. You also just happen to do it more.

  • @andrew_s848
    @andrew_s848 7 місяців тому +51

    “I’m telling you, just attach a big parachute TO THE PLANE ITSELF! Is anyone listening to me?!” - Jack Handey

    • @johnb8440
      @johnb8440 7 місяців тому +9

      Cirrus aircraft parachute system. CAPS. This is actually a thing in small aircraft, the issue is that the parachutes required to stop at 737 would be ridiculously large and complex. Cirrus had to invent this system so that they can make Vtails because the vtails when they spin cannot be recovered. This is part of why the beechcraft Bonanza gained the title of fork tailed doctor killer.

    • @bbgun061
      @bbgun061 7 місяців тому +11

      I'm a pilot. I often tell people who ask, that the airplane's wing IS the parachute. We can glide if the engines fail.

    • @andrew_s848
      @andrew_s848 7 місяців тому

      I've heard about this system, didn't it save a few lives when a small plane went down in Utah, California, something like that a few years back? Pretty amazing but you're right, not exactly practical when it comes to a huge jetliner. Even if it weren't impossible, the airlines wouldn't ever invest in it.@@johnb8440

    • @andrew_s848
      @andrew_s848 7 місяців тому +2

      @@bbgun061 much respect to what you do, and that’s a good point. Some amazing stories out there. Sully gets a lot of credit but there was another situation very similar, a flight from South America I believe, that had engine failure after flying through heavy hail and landed safely on a levee near New Orleans. Pretty incredible, I can’t remember the flight though

  • @Warrentheo
    @Warrentheo 7 місяців тому +14

    Redundency is very very important, that is why Boeing made sure to only put only one angle of attack sensor on their MCAS system...

    • @boipink
      @boipink 7 місяців тому +2

      Dark man

  • @sporkafife
    @sporkafife 7 місяців тому +10

    "On a commercial airliner, every system is going to be double or triple redundant" - say that to the ONE angle of attack sensor that was hooked up the the stability system (that pilots also weren't told actually existed) on the 737 max that caused those crashes

    • @FlyingLessons
      @FlyingLessons 7 місяців тому

      There were multiple AoA sensors. The problem was the software did not respond appropriately when one of them failed or emitted an erroneous signal. (Which then caused the engagement of the MCAS system that no one knew existed).

  • @nikujaga_oishii
    @nikujaga_oishii 7 місяців тому +12

    In case somebody wants to mention ejection seat :
    for the majority of accidents, it's safer if you evacuate normally - there is no way to safely eject 200-400 people - the seat's rocket motor will probably make a lot of grilled humans around your seat, and any loose item in the cabin affected by the seat will probably become hazardous projectiles that will punch holes through a lot of people - Final Destination stuff, basically
    even if they can magically fit those in, but if you're not trained to use it, you're likely gonna die or seriously injured because of it instead - for example, a few limbs might get ripped off if they're not where they're supposed to be

    • @cahdoge
      @cahdoge 7 місяців тому +2

      Considering even many pilots aren allowed to fly again after having been ejected, putting an untrained person into an ejection seat will not be pretty. Crushed spine, serious neck injuries (can be fatal), damage to theeth or tounge, whiplash and that's all the stuff a trained person is still at reisk for, not to mention the absolute caranage you described.

  • @deep.space.12
    @deep.space.12 7 місяців тому +186

    If a plane is crashing it wouldn't be at 30000ft. Just sayin'

    • @ununiqueusername
      @ununiqueusername 6 місяців тому +10

      why tf does the top comment have 7 likes

    • @ameya7035
      @ameya7035 5 місяців тому +3

      For long

    • @nicholaswilliams6475
      @nicholaswilliams6475 4 місяці тому +13

      Most planes crash at 0ft. There’s not much to collide with in the sky.

    • @finesseandstyle
      @finesseandstyle 4 місяці тому +4

      true, i don't know why would you ever jump at the altitudes where the planes travel, no sane pilot would ever give up on a plane much less when you have so much height.
      "dear passengers, i have lost control of the plane, ready up your parachutes" - said no one ever

    • @Bread1_YT
      @Bread1_YT Місяць тому

      It would but then at 25,000, 20,000, 15,000

  • @konnerl5434
    @konnerl5434 Місяць тому +2

    Another piece- even if you somehow survived, you could be thousands of miles from where the plane crashed, meaning no one will find you, so unless you dropped near a city, youll starve alone on the wilderness

  • @StoneSailsSculpture
    @StoneSailsSculpture 7 місяців тому +24

    Even if it was possible, and all else went "well," that would be one crowded sky. There would be tons of deaths from parachute to parachute collisons. Also, high altutide parachutingnis possible with scuba like gear. The army calls it HALO, i used to reman some of it, its pretty cool stuff, but its more complex then a regular jump.

    • @sonoftheway3528
      @sonoftheway3528 7 місяців тому

      I don't understand this logic. "100% deaths is better than tons of deaths"

    • @laurabrisbois3901
      @laurabrisbois3901 7 місяців тому +10

      @@sonoftheway3528 most plane incidents are recoverable to a degree. There are fairly few 100% death crashes.

    • @slyseal2091
      @slyseal2091 7 місяців тому +10

      @@sonoftheway3528The only 100% death cases are the ones where the landing is so uncontrolled, the pilot couldn't have brought the plane into a parachuting position in the first place. The video never addressed that to my surprise either, most of these problems _can_ be solved by just designing them with a commerical situation in mind. You can turn the engines off, improve door positions, make easy parachutes, hand out radios, fly low and then depressurize slowly, etc.
      But all of this would only work in situations where the current system of trying to control the crash is always a better solution.

    • @sonoftheway3528
      @sonoftheway3528 7 місяців тому

      @@slyseal2091 I'm a bit confused about your last sentence.
      So you're saying it is feasible but, wouldn't be better than the current system?

    • @slyseal2091
      @slyseal2091 7 місяців тому +4

      ​@@sonoftheway3528 A situation where the plane works well enough to let passengers jump out, is a situation where the plane works well enough to let everyone survive a rough landing. Imagine there are 100 ways a plane can crash. Jumping has 50 survivable scenarios. Landing has 75 survivable scenarios. Landing works in every scenario in which jumping works.

  • @joshuapatrick682
    @joshuapatrick682 Місяць тому +1

    I dislike flying because it’s uncomfortable, dehumanizing and often painful not because it’s dangerous.

  • @iulelivilamorais8751
    @iulelivilamorais8751 7 місяців тому +6

    Sam must feel so accomplished that he was finally able to talk about planes.

  • @nimric3348
    @nimric3348 4 місяці тому +1

    Allowing passengers to jump out of the plane with 30 seconds of training they are gonna ignore would be a legal nightmare.

  • @V1489Cygni
    @V1489Cygni 7 місяців тому +22

    Remember, to avoid issues with cabin pressure, outside temperature and high speeds, make sure to jump when the pIane is sIow and Iow, i.e. when most accidents happen anyway.

    • @_Mintyz_
      @_Mintyz_ 7 місяців тому +14

      and if it is low, you can't even realistically use the parachute

    • @Libroer
      @Libroer 7 місяців тому +4

      @@_Mintyz_well, not THAT low. Just like… not at 35,000 feet ya know. 12 or 13 k would do it

    • @_Mintyz_
      @_Mintyz_ 7 місяців тому +1

      @@Libroer how do you know what altitude you are and how are you going to going to jump out of a free falling or fast falling plane?

    • @Libroer
      @Libroer 7 місяців тому

      @@_Mintyz_ the pilot knows

    • @_Mintyz_
      @_Mintyz_ 7 місяців тому +4

      @@Libroer it would only be reasonable to jump out when the plane is either uncontrollable (aka basically free falling) or when the plane is free falling or when the nose is locked far down. I wish you the best of luck to jump out of a plane in these conditions.

  • @andrew24601
    @andrew24601 7 місяців тому +4

    i am LIVING for these slightly longer HAI videos

  • @hadinossanosam4459
    @hadinossanosam4459 7 місяців тому +50

    5:19 General aviation accident statistics are very much not the same as commercial aviation statistics, and this video is explicitly about the latter - the point about phases of flight still stands, but that pie chart is just misleading :/ (The reason more crashes happen during landing and takeoff is also that the ground is closer, and crashes often involve the ground)

    • @alltheusernameswastaken8936
      @alltheusernameswastaken8936 7 місяців тому +5

      He also did not watch Mythbusters and so still thinks a plan violently decompresses and sucks stuff out....

    • @DrZaius3141
      @DrZaius3141 7 місяців тому +15

      "crashes often involve the ground" [citation needed]

    • @Libroer
      @Libroer 7 місяців тому

      This whole damn video was a waste of time. Terrible

  • @crewrangergaming9582
    @crewrangergaming9582 7 місяців тому +5

    That's why I carry my own parachute whenever I am on a flight.

  • @meltedyakkystick3891
    @meltedyakkystick3891 7 місяців тому +14

    "This is your captain speaking. Please fasten your seat belts as we are experiencing some mild turbulence.
    That one mf that brought a parachute: "Not today." *Opens cabin door

    • @fakestory1753
      @fakestory1753 7 місяців тому +1

      *jumps into jet engine inlet

  • @inorganicduck
    @inorganicduck 7 місяців тому +9

    0:12 lol i was on a 737 going to houston when I read the headline that the boeing ceo resigned

  • @wlinden
    @wlinden 7 місяців тому +54

    There is a scene in Shute’s IN THE WET where a visiting politician demands why the royal 747 does not have a Very pistol, while the pilot tries to explain that if they were in trouble, setting off manual flares would not help, and they can’t set it down just anywhere.

    • @EEEEEEEE
      @EEEEEEEE 7 місяців тому

      ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎E‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎

    • @stdesy
      @stdesy 7 місяців тому +14

      They opted for the Extremely pistol instead

  • @notmenotme614
    @notmenotme614 7 місяців тому +1

    Another problem he didn’t mention is if you parachuted over water. Even if you survive the parachute jump, you won’t survive in the sea. When I was in the military, I heard our pilots would only survive in the sea, in winter temperatures, for 7 minutes without wearing an immersion suit before they succumb to hypothermia. Imagine the Titanic with no life rafts.
    Also, from my experience in the military, I call bullsh*t that aircraft can’t carry weight. We had over 50kg luggage allowance each and the trooper aircraft was at max capacity (291 pax? The aircraft had a 45,000 kg dry payload). So Airlines saying they can’t carry weight is just them being greedy and trying to maximise their profits. Even Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 flew with over 10 tonnes of cargo (a shipment of lithium ion batteries and mangosteen fruit) in addition to its passengers and their luggage.

  • @YoungGandalf2325
    @YoungGandalf2325 7 місяців тому +121

    Commercial airlines could save so much weight, thus reducing the cost of tickets for passengers and allowing the executives to buy more horses, by eliminating the double and triple redundant mechanical systems. Why haven't they done this?

    • @mt_xing
      @mt_xing 7 місяців тому +141

      Boeing would like to offer you a job

    • @benjaminlynch9958
      @benjaminlynch9958 7 місяців тому +18

      Pretty sure that would violate a hundred bajillion FAA and NTSB regulations, and airline executives are probably not keen on jail time.

    • @variousthings6470
      @variousthings6470 7 місяців тому +3

      Oh, it said "horses"? I thought that line was "Porsches".
      So I went back and listened again, and I think you're right - "horses" it is! (And the auto-generated subtitles agree.)

    • @YoungGandalf2325
      @YoungGandalf2325 7 місяців тому +3

      @@mt_xing I'm interested. But I'll definitely be driving to their headquarters for the interview.

    • @GrumpyIan
      @GrumpyIan 7 місяців тому +3

      ​@@benjaminlynch9958it's only illegal if you get caught, and if you do get caught simply shift the blame to the ones that died.

  • @iusehuzuni
    @iusehuzuni 7 місяців тому +1

    watching this video while on a plane to houston.. you know too much man

    • @DavidKen878
      @DavidKen878 7 місяців тому

      But this should be common sense lol

  • @Archaon888
    @Archaon888 7 місяців тому +6

    But Sam, what if I waited to jump out of the plane until after it had fallen to a survivable altitude, spending that extra time making sure I had my parachute on right? Would it be any less of a terrible idea then?

  • @rosssavage3172
    @rosssavage3172 7 місяців тому +2

    “Correction, sir. That’s blown out”
    -Commander Data

  • @kjh23gk
    @kjh23gk 7 місяців тому +3

    OK, you're ruled out parachutes, but what about ejector seats for every passenger?

    • @sirizalot
      @sirizalot 7 місяців тому +1

      I like that your solution is just "what if we just eliminated the parachute and lived (or perhaps not) with the consequences"

    • @RoyalMela
      @RoyalMela День тому

      Those seats work by using explosives. Would you have 300 explosive charges on your flight at all time? What if there is a malfunction? You can not launch every seat at same time, so you would kill most people inside the plane when seats blow up the charge and fry people sitting next to you. Where does the roof go? It will fly away and hit tail and then the plane is 100% gone.

  • @Clemsonjmal
    @Clemsonjmal 6 місяців тому +2

    That "dangerous vacuum" had me actually cracking up 😂

  • @stephenwodz7593
    @stephenwodz7593 7 місяців тому +164

    Anyone who thinks parachutes on commercial planes would be a good idea, knows nothing about parachutes or commercial planes.

    • @V1489Cygni
      @V1489Cygni 7 місяців тому +13

      Or good ideas.

    • @Johnne009
      @Johnne009 7 місяців тому +14

      Guess you haven't heard of DB Cooper

    • @brickinapresent
      @brickinapresent 7 місяців тому +1

      its cuz we dont really think about it, when we think of the idea, most people just hear high altitude, and something to slow down the jump heavily to make it easily survivable (and for some people, fun) we immediately think its fine

    • @EEEEEEEE
      @EEEEEEEE 7 місяців тому

      E‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎

    • @EebstertheGreat
      @EebstertheGreat 7 місяців тому +12

      @@Johnne009 Seems he didn't know so much about them either, seeing as he probably fell to his death.

  • @MTTT1234
    @MTTT1234 7 місяців тому +2

    Saw once an article about somebody suggesting a system where people would be seatbelted to their seats at all times during the flight, though not just normal hip-belts, but instead four-point belts like fighter pilots, and in case something would happen, the seats would be released through the back of the plane on rails, with a small inflateable hood being deployed over the head of the passenger for air, and the parachute would deploy from the backrest of their seat. Though even if that system worked, as you described here, all these extra-systems would probably add up weight preeeeetty fast, reducing both the number of possible passengers and luggage and range for such planes.

  • @microbot0246
    @microbot0246 7 місяців тому +21

    Wait, Half as Interesting is also Wendover? I was totally oblivious to that

    • @Wes12940
      @Wes12940 7 місяців тому

      I am so confused. They are not? I thought they were.

    • @jest0riz0r
      @jest0riz0r 7 місяців тому

      yes they are lol, and you can see some of the team in action on their third channel jetlag

    • @randomgeocacher
      @randomgeocacher 7 місяців тому +3

      “Sam … Wendover Productions, Half as Interesting, Extremities, and the travel competition show Jet Lag: The Game.” (Wikipedia) - also he & friends have two pretty good episodes on Lateral Podcast.

    • @randomgeocacher
      @randomgeocacher 7 місяців тому +2

      Also the voice and the in-joke references between the channels are a hint :)

    • @microbot0246
      @microbot0246 7 місяців тому

      @@Wes12940 I wasn't claiming that they weren't the same, just that I wasn't aware.

  • @aaron6787
    @aaron6787 5 місяців тому +1

    Everyone else: double or triple redundant
    Boeing: hold my beer

  • @Jrose11
    @Jrose11 7 місяців тому +4

    I literally talked about this yesterday. Haven't watched yet, but I'm assuming you re-iterate the sad truth that parachutes would be useless to 99% of people since they don't know how to use it, and the exit from the plane would likely be more dangerous than surviving the landing.

    • @JimOHalloran
      @JimOHalloran 7 місяців тому

      That's pretty much the 1 sentence summary of the video!

    • @The_Blazement
      @The_Blazement 7 місяців тому +1

      just bring a flying type pokemon instead

  • @jschrystal
    @jschrystal 7 місяців тому +1

    Just watched this sitting at an airport gate about to go to Houston, where i dont particularly want to go. Nice call.

  • @TrimutiusToo
    @TrimutiusToo 7 місяців тому +15

    I once was on a plane that had mechanical failure because it hit a flock of birds which got stuck in the engines... and 3 out of 4 engines shutdown, and pilots still managed to turn around and land back in the airport of departure... So yeah parachute wouldn't help there because we were too low still anyway...

    • @DaWolf805
      @DaWolf805 7 місяців тому +4

      A four-engined airliner is not certified for flight on a single engine, it's certified for flight on three and sometimes as few as two engines. The only instance I can find of a triple engine failure happening on a four-engined aircraft was an A400M... which crashed, because it is, of course, not actually controllable in that circumstance. Don't exaggerate the story please.

    • @killerwhale__
      @killerwhale__ 7 місяців тому

      ​@@DaWolf805did you know birds are not at 35000ft so they prob hit some while climbing

    • @TrimutiusToo
      @TrimutiusToo 7 місяців тому

      @@DaWolf805It has nothing to do with "certification" it was force major... And I think they actually managed to restart some of the engines they didn't completely shut off, so I suppose that is a bit of exaggeration... It wasn't crash landing so yeah not much coverage they managed to turn around and land safely

  • @jalabi99
    @jalabi99 5 місяців тому

    3:22 the man 2nd from the left in "this group of guys" isn't an airline executive - he is Wes Moore, Rhodes scholar, former CEO of the Robin Hood Foundation (which raised more than $650 million during his four years at the helm), and governor of the US state of Maryland since January 2023. He is also a military vet, having served in the US Army from 1998 to 2014, leaving service with the rank of Captain and as the recipient of the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon.

  • @Rubrickety
    @Rubrickety 7 місяців тому +3

    Airlines should just tell passengers that their emergency life vests can also be used as parachutes. They’re about equally likely to save you in either case.

  • @Shannon-f8w
    @Shannon-f8w 5 місяців тому +1

    In an emergency, I'll trust the pilots and air attendants over my dumb arse self with a parachute.

  • @guillermobermudez1464
    @guillermobermudez1464 7 місяців тому +100

    Video sponsored by Boeing

    • @guyubangu150
      @guyubangu150 7 місяців тому

      I see what you did there 😂😂😂

    • @fashidvc5757
      @fashidvc5757 7 місяців тому

      Boeing did

    • @whimsical_mango
      @whimsical_mango 4 місяці тому

      He made a video against Boeing in his other channel.

  • @ericw.1620
    @ericw.1620 7 місяців тому +1

    The last time we tried the whole parachutes on planes thing, they were golden and it worked out for a few (former) Boeing execs but not so well for the rest of us.

  • @lucienskinner-savallisch5399
    @lucienskinner-savallisch5399 7 місяців тому +4

    Commenting before the video but there are planes that have plane-sized parachutes built into the body of the plane, mostly on single prop private craft but the technology is there and they've already saved multiple lives from engine failures

    • @bocahdongo7769
      @bocahdongo7769 7 місяців тому +2

      Because surprise surprise.
      It was lighter and has less redudancy anyway like.... two engine?

    • @lucienskinner-savallisch5399
      @lucienskinner-savallisch5399 7 місяців тому +1

      @@bocahdongo7769 what about single prop stunt planes?? Or someone who wants even more redundancy in their personal aircraft?

    • @bocahdongo7769
      @bocahdongo7769 7 місяців тому

      @@lucienskinner-savallisch5399You get your emotion first, my point is just, It's irrelevant in bigger plane anyway.
      You can use the same resource to developer insanely ultrasafe foolproof superlight parachute to just.... Rework the entire fucking Boeing instead. We already have plane with ZERO fatality anyway (like A380, from not Boeing)

  • @MetaCake-
    @MetaCake- 7 місяців тому +4

    2:45 No? Even in an explosive decompression this wouldn't happen, worst case scenario the person sitting next to the hole could get sucked out if they weren't buckled

  • @richardc5100
    @richardc5100 7 місяців тому +26

    DB Cooper has entered the chat

    • @theregalproletariat
      @theregalproletariat 7 місяців тому +5

      The plane he hopped out of had a rear door.
      Also, he seems to have been a vet, as he chose the older, military-issue parachutes.

    • @Johnne009
      @Johnne009 7 місяців тому +1

      ​@@theregalproletariatas long you have a door behind the engines you should be fine

    • @tzkelley
      @tzkelley 7 місяців тому +5

      @@theregalproletariat the parachutes came from a skydiving school that used to be about a mile from my house (the airport is now Costco). He didn't have a choice in the chutes he got--they literally grabbed them off the shelf and took them to SEATAC.

    • @LineOfThy
      @LineOfThy 7 місяців тому

      @@Johnne009 and the people in front?

    • @ihavenoideas5844
      @ihavenoideas5844 7 місяців тому

      ​@@Johnne009It also helps that the 727 tailplane is higher compared to most other planes

  • @jg-7780
    @jg-7780 7 місяців тому +1

    Dissapointed this wasnt a video about how comically ridiculous a single giant parachut carrying an entire 737 would be

  • @romulusnr
    @romulusnr 7 місяців тому +5

    I feel like I recognize the guy at 0:05

  • @chris-hu7tm
    @chris-hu7tm 3 місяці тому +1

    The number one reason we dont have parachutes is cost, plain and simple. The other reasons are just there to distract from said reason

  • @DB-thats-me
    @DB-thats-me 7 місяців тому +7

    You can’t get most of the pax to get a life jacket on. I don’t want to think of a plane load ‘the general public’ trying to put a parachute on. 😂

  • @macdonaldmatthew10
    @macdonaldmatthew10 7 місяців тому +1

    Fantastic video! I enjoyed this style. I hope making it was cathartic to make!

  • @bubbledoubletrouble
    @bubbledoubletrouble 7 місяців тому +14

    5:39 Doubly and triply redundant means there are two and three things _in total_ respectively. So, in the case of a failure, there are _one_ and _two_ backups, not two and three backups.

    • @fuckgooglefrfr
      @fuckgooglefrfr 7 місяців тому

      No? If what you say is true. A "redundant system" doesn't exist. Only a "double redundant system" would be the minimum. But that's not true.
      A redundant system already has a backup. So a "double" redundant system has 2 backups, 3 systems in total. And a "triple redundant" system would have 3 backups, 4 systems in total.
      Again a "redundant system" already has a backup. So a "double redundant system" has 2.

    • @fuckgooglefrfr
      @fuckgooglefrfr 7 місяців тому

      No?

  • @christianyobel117
    @christianyobel117 7 місяців тому +1

    Boeing: what redundancy? triple layer of safety feature?! You get half a safety feature, take it or leave it!

  • @Lavassin
    @Lavassin 7 місяців тому +7

    Okay, but I'm built different. I'd survive.

    • @maxwell6881
      @maxwell6881 7 місяців тому

      This is a joke right?

    • @Lavassin
      @Lavassin 7 місяців тому +1

      @@maxwell6881No. Have you seen my abs? I am a machine of a human

  • @AIRBUS321XLR
    @AIRBUS321XLR 7 місяців тому +1

    The door: yk what ima still do it

  • @benlltt
    @benlltt 7 місяців тому +8

    6:30 correction - 100% of plane crashes happen at landing

  • @mangogo44
    @mangogo44 7 місяців тому +1

    I'm a cabin crew and I get asked "where's my parachute stowed" all the time. When I tell them there's no parachutes they get horrified and no amount of explanation helps...

  • @nunyabidness3075
    @nunyabidness3075 7 місяців тому +3

    We jumped from jets in the Army. It had a special screen that broke up the air to stop you from getting slammed back into the fuselage. Still, I cannot imagine making this work for 100 plus civilians.

  • @seneca983
    @seneca983 7 місяців тому +1

    I thought this was going to be about (hypothetical) enormous parachutes that would allow the whole plane to just gently float down even if the wings had fallen off or something.

    • @darthquigley
      @darthquigley 7 місяців тому +2

      That's not hypothetical. Cirrus puts them on all their planes. I assume the reasons for airliners not having giant parachutes are
      1. It would take up too much space, meaning fewer passengers per plane
      2. Airliners have better ways of dealing with the problems where the parachute could be used. Engine failure on takeoff? There's another engine. Pilot has a heart attack? There's another pilot.

    • @seneca983
      @seneca983 7 місяців тому

      @@darthquigley OK, interesting. I hadn't heard of that before. Still, I was thinking about parachutes for big airliners, not small planes.

  • @Zachruff
    @Zachruff 7 місяців тому +7

    was not aware of the hudson river crash statistics with the life vests, thats actually really interesting and kinda shocking

  • @Tsirkon
    @Tsirkon 7 місяців тому +2

    Short answer to save you 8 minutes: do you want to jump from 30,000 feet in the air with your casual travel clothing?

  • @gl9tched
    @gl9tched 7 місяців тому +3

    thanks for all the tips sam, gonna jump out of my next flight in your honor!

  • @unifiedhorizons2663
    @unifiedhorizons2663 7 місяців тому +1

    A lady fell 37000 feet and lived

  • @captain61games49
    @captain61games49 7 місяців тому +3

    Ive flown in the king air at 1:16 how random lol

  • @dr.lexwinter8604
    @dr.lexwinter8604 6 місяців тому +1

    SO MANY EXCUSES. The reality is, it'd cost too much, and you're not worth protecting in their eyes for the ticket price.

    • @RoyalMela
      @RoyalMela День тому

      Reality is cost is one issue, but all other "excuses" are real facts. No-one would survive a jump at 35000 feet.

  • @peepohappy6309
    @peepohappy6309 7 місяців тому +3

    The part about being sucked out of the plane isnt really true, thats just movie science. In reality it would mostly only be strong enough to suck the air and some light object, not people

    • @_Mintyz_
      @_Mintyz_ 7 місяців тому +1

      I mean it depends on your proximity to the door, people have been sucked out of planes before

    • @SoWhat1221
      @SoWhat1221 7 місяців тому

      If you're standing right next to the door, explosive decompression will definitely blow you out. Movie science is the idea that it keeps sucking after the initial blast.

    • @RoyalMela
      @RoyalMela День тому

      Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, British Airways Flight 5390, Aloha Airlines Flight 243, Sichuan Airlines Flight 8633, United Airlines Flight 811... You sure can be sucked out. It is not a myth.

  • @nilayvyas668
    @nilayvyas668 7 місяців тому

    Absolutely fantastic! I really appreciate you ability and willingness to branch out, but we know THIS is your wheelhouse. Loved it! One of your best videos in years. Can't wait for another.

  • @HarrisonWhite-wi4ns
    @HarrisonWhite-wi4ns 7 місяців тому +14

    Couldn’t you wait until the plane falls to an altitude you could survive jumping from before jumping out? If it’s crashing it should pass through a lower atmosphere before it hits the ground.

    • @steverestless9202
      @steverestless9202 7 місяців тому +13

      sure, but if you're in an uncontrolled freefall, how are you going to make it to the doors? people can't get off the damn things in a timely when they're sitting on the ground, much less when the noses is pointed towards hell, and everyone is panicking, and you'd probably just be thrown around the cabin if you were moving around. If it's not in freefall, and they can level off long enough to shed passengers, they probably have enough control left to land in the first place.

    • @princem5155
      @princem5155 7 місяців тому +6

      Also how would you know when that is? That’s assuming you even managed to get your parachute on, walked to the door in that turbulence and somehow opened the door all in time. But then again, how would you know the timing for all that?

    • @whytecold
      @whytecold 7 місяців тому

      I would strongly assume that if the pilots have enough control left to get the plane into a position where people could parachute from it, they have enough control to get the plane down onto some runway.

    • @bocahdongo7769
      @bocahdongo7769 7 місяців тому +1

      IF
      ELSE?

    • @silentetiam1744
      @silentetiam1744 7 місяців тому

      yes you could but that would only be possible when its a controlled descend, if for any reason the controls fail like in the Swissair 111 accident not even the best skydiver wouldnt make it

  • @ailivac
    @ailivac 7 місяців тому +2

    ANA: if we make passengers go to the bathroom before taking off we'll save 8¢ worth of fuel for each one.
    Ryanair: no, no, no, if they have to go to the bathroom while they're in the air we can charge them much more than that!

  • @alejocello
    @alejocello 7 місяців тому +8

    Judging by his facial expression, that guy at 4:12 definitely caused whatever it is that's happening to that plane.

  • @greed0599
    @greed0599 7 місяців тому +2

    Parachutes could still be used. Most crashes have glide time prior, so if the captain wanted too he could get it low and slow enough for you to safely jump out from the aft

    • @tomstravels520
      @tomstravels520 7 місяців тому

      Most crashes? Can you please prove that? Most that involves a glide are usually due to engine failure and pilots are trained to land with stricken engines

    • @greed0599
      @greed0599 7 місяців тому

      @@tomstravels520 You literally just said why.
      Having glide time doesnt mean you'll avoid a crash landing.

    • @tomstravels520
      @tomstravels520 7 місяців тому

      @@greed0599 a rarity is what I’m pointing out. Imagine if the passengers of TS261 jumped out of the plane only for the plane then safetly lands at an airport whilst they’re floating in the Atlantic Ocean

    • @greed0599
      @greed0599 7 місяців тому

      @@tomstravels520 Ok? That wasnt my point though. My point was that using a parachute to evacuate a passenger jet in an emergency situation wouldnt have to be lethal as half as interesting suggests.

    • @opheliacyanide2370
      @opheliacyanide2370 7 місяців тому

      @@greed0599have you looked up the stats on engine failure and crash landings? The bulk of them in the last several years have had minimal casualties.
      If the pilot can get the plane stable, slow, and at a controlled altitude, then it's going to be safer for the passengers to ride the plane down.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft
      Just look at the number of accidents with 'engine failure' as the cause of crash (vs communication issues or weather issues) and you'll see most of the times, esp with big jets, most of the people survive.

  • @Yumixfan
    @Yumixfan 7 місяців тому +10

    2:15 Technically this isn't 100% true. While you absolutely would get sucked out due to the depressurization, there have been people who have skydived from heights at and above commercial airline altitude (and survived). Obviously most of those were doing things like testing pressure suits and such but there have been some without pressure suits/without functional pressure suits. But regardless of that, those were all people who were extremely well trained skydivers usually testing things for the military in case of emergency ejections for pilots/astronauts, not the general public who would absolutely not fair nearly as well. But theoretically speaking you probably won't die from the lack of oxygen and cold before hitting the ground, you would just die from hitting the ground when you failed to skydive properly/get knocked unconscious from the depressurization

  • @mikiqex
    @mikiqex 7 місяців тому

    Side note, when I was trying various small flying things years back, I remember in some of them (gliders, some ultralights) you actually had to wear a parachute, because the seats were designed with their presence in mind and it was pretty much impossible to sit in them without one.

  • @DFWHoppe
    @DFWHoppe 7 місяців тому +3

    4:23 man, you said "crashed"
    I know of someone that will definitely tell you it was a controlled water landing.

    • @TheNixie1972
      @TheNixie1972 7 місяців тому +1

      A forced water landing.

  • @gfdx3214
    @gfdx3214 7 місяців тому +1

    Regarding the crashes, in how many cases could you actually have the time to realise you can put one on, put one on, then get out? not only do most crashes not take place during a moment when you could under normal circumstances drop, most accidents happen in quick succession, not the minutes you would need to put one on

  • @1701echopapa
    @1701echopapa 7 місяців тому +4

    Most people making these comments have no idea how chaotic it is in a crashing airliner. They should watch the air crash videos available on UA-cam.

  • @baylinkdashyt
    @baylinkdashyt 7 місяців тому +1

    "Look. You and I both know why you're here."
    BRICKS!?

  • @cyrex686
    @cyrex686 7 місяців тому +8

    What about a parachute for the entire plane, like you can get for smaller planes? Wouldn't work in all situations, but would work in enough.

    • @bocahdongo7769
      @bocahdongo7769 7 місяців тому +6

      Good luck not landing on top of powerline,
      or volcano,
      or middle of storm sea,
      or middle of amazon jungle with 1001 deadly thing,
      or your mom

    • @stephenwodz7593
      @stephenwodz7593 7 місяців тому +17

      The 'chute would have to be MASSIVE, would weight a ton, and would be useless close to the ground, where most emergencies occur.

    • @weethet
      @weethet 7 місяців тому +7

      Also if it accidentally gets deployed, all passengers are dead

    • @RoyMatzem
      @RoyMatzem 7 місяців тому +7

      Same issues. Weight, Cost, Altitude.
      Also. a parachute would be useless in human errors. Which is the vast majority

    • @LineOfThy
      @LineOfThy 7 місяців тому +1

      no it wouldn't work at all

  • @kylecramer8489
    @kylecramer8489 6 місяців тому +1

    Intro aged like a fine wine

  • @almostcertainlynotapotato6528
    @almostcertainlynotapotato6528 7 місяців тому +5

    Not me immediately thinking of DB cooper lol

  •  7 місяців тому

    The bit with the photoshopped cord was brilliant, well done Ben, or Amy, or whoever wrote that!

  • @pkkigathi
    @pkkigathi 7 місяців тому +10

    Who is watching this due to insomnia

    • @notturner8528
      @notturner8528 7 місяців тому +1

      Just got home from work, haven’t slept in 24 hrs ….and I don’t yet feel the lull of sleep …yeeeeeee anyway how’s you?

    • @pkkigathi
      @pkkigathi 7 місяців тому

      @@notturner8528 I'm good.Hope you too

  • @scubaad64
    @scubaad64 5 місяців тому

    "These guys can buy fewer horses or something"... If that is a reference to what I think it is, that was hilariously savage.