Instigator / Pro
0
1432
rating
361
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#3737

Airlines are equipped with life vests. Likewise equip with parachute mechanisms.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
22,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

You can say it's dogmatic but it logically follows according to an objective.

You argue why it's invalid or not congruent in opposition to the topic statement.

Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Forfeited
Con
#2
Most passengers are not trained to react and can actually end up strangled, dead more assuredly and worse, if one opens mid-flight the parachute will possibly suffocated and entangle younger or smaller passengers in the kerfuffle.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Pretty valid reasonable point and there are those that have agreed with me.


The airline companies wish to provide protection of some sort as a survival measure.


Just like on boats, ships, life boats and jackets, the airliners have considered about possible perils plunging into the water.


But what about into the pavement?


Let alone going into water from high altitudes at great miles an hour.


Airplanes are equipped with oxygen dispenser attachments.

It stands to reason to cover the many possible perils.


I land in some water, I can't swim, I'll have some safety measure.


I'm airborne, I can't fly like superman, I'll have or could have some safety net there as well.


Note that this is not a criticism or indictment of any kind towards airlines .


None whatsoever.



Con
#4
Airline passengers have no parachute training

Parachuting is not that simple, at least in the sense that anyone (who has had no practice) could do it as easily as they show in movies. The most basic type of skydiving, i.e. tandem skydiving – where an individual is strapped to an expert throughout the plummet – also requires you to undergo at least half an hour of basic training and instructions. The riskiest kind of skydiving, where the subject jumps out of an airplane more than 10,000 feet above the ground, requires hours’ worth of proper training and practice before the jump.

Skydives are preplanned
An important thing to remember about skydiving is that it occurs under perfectly normal conditions. Since the jumps are pre-planned, the skydiver knows well in advance that they are going to jump out of a moving airplane. In contrast, passengers onboard airplanes would never know in advance that they might have to take the leap in the next few minutes.
Skydives are extensively planned and prepared for in advance.

In essence, what you have on a commercial plane are people who have never used a parachute in their lives, but have to strap on the gear effectively in only a minute or two and prepare to jump. They also have to do all this while wearing their emergency oxygen masks (we haven’t even factored in the environment of confusion and commotion that would rock the cabin in such an emergency situation). Clearly, this sort of exercise is unlikely to be as effective as it might initially seem.

Commercial aircraft fly very high
Planned skydives, including the riskiest ones, occur no more than 15,000-16,000 feet above the ground. Plus, the planes these skydivers jump from are usually small and aren’t moving that fast. On the contrary, most commercial airplanes cruise at around 35,000 feet – an altitude where you won’t find any breathable air, and they also fly much faster. In order for passengers parachuting out of a downed airplane to not pass out due to hypoxia, they would need oxygen cylinders, provided that they ‘clear’ the plane safely, which, by the way, is another important concern because…

Commercial airplanes are not designed to be conducive for people jumping out of it

Planes that host regular, individual skydives are typically small, so skydivers clear it pretty much immediately after the jump. Large military aircraft, on the other hand, have a nice ramp at the back where parachutists can jump and steer clear of the fuselage.

Military aircraft have a ramp at the back to facilitate skydives

Commercial aircraft, however, have neither a small body nor a ramp. Jumping out of a conventional airplane would include the serious risk of smashing into the fuselage of the aircraft (its wings or tail), and sustain grievous, if not fatal injuries.
Speed of the airplane
Then there’s the airplane’s speed. Commercial airplanes not just cruise at a very high altitude, they also go really fast. If one was to try jumping out of the airplane at that speed, it’s highly likely that may suffer grievous or even injuries on their neck.

Most accidents occur during landing and takeoff
Now, this is a purely statistical reason. The most practical time for parachuting out of an airplane is when it’s cruising. However, it’s generally observed that most fatal plane crashes occur either during landings or takeoffs – times when parachutes would be pretty useless anyway.

Parachuting kits are bulky and expensive
A parachute is too bulky to fit under a typical economy class seat. Plus, its heavy. Naturally, it would take up sizable space on the plane, which is already quite costly. Also, adding parachutes for every soul on a commercial airplane would easily add around 6,000-8,000 pounds to its overall weight, a situation that airlines desperately try to avoid. To top it all off, parachuting gear (helmet, altimeter, goggles etc.) is quite expensive, which means that airfare would increase significantly if parachutes were made mandatory on all commercial flights.

Let's look further into this by bulletpointing the core issues:

  1. Barely any passengers will be capable of properly handling their parachute in the emergency, it can even make problems and tangle/suffocate/trip other passengers as the parachute activates.
  2. Along those lines, because parachutes take several (towards 9 at best) minutes to get on properly for experts, passengers are either going to have to sit uncomfortably all flight long with the parachute around them, fully harnessed/fastened or they will have to be in a situation that has no parachute as it's just too chaotic when everyone starts handling them, again especially if one 'lets loose' in the plane, THEY ARE HUGE AND HANVE MANY STRINGS.
  3. If the airplane sets of extremely high up, how are you going to get to the ground? Skydiving planes and helicopters are much lower than commercial airplanes fly, they make it a smoother journey down and are at the level where oxygen isn't too thin so your brain still works properly as you oxygenate it by breathing.
  4. Cost-vs-gain analysis.

Round 3
Pro
#5
So do we give a chance at survival with a parachute or none when free falling ?

No disrespect but I can't trust you with my life. I see a parachute mechanism, absolutely no other options, are you going to say "no, you wasn't trained to use it, just fall?"

Come on now, it's the same principle with a life vest. I never used one of them either. The stewardesses demonstrating doesn't help me.

Not only that, but with all tech nowadays, what in the world is money being spent on if not to simplify the mechanics of an airborne safety device?

Remember I said parachute mechanism, not necessarily a parachute.

Whatever that parachute like mechanism is, it can be quite simple as a vest pushing a button or pulling a cord.
Con
#6
So do we give a chance at survival with a parachute or none when free falling ?
The problem is that in the chaos, the odds are more towards an accident. You can't really parachute at the height that commercial airplanes fly at, you'll freeze up (literally get frozen at certain times and climates) and be very low on oxygen.

The chance you refer to ignores how cumbersome parachutes are to put on.

OK - several people have pointed out that while the story may be amusing, it’s not helpful. You know what else isn’t helpful on a passenger jet?
A parachute.
You’re asking a group of untrained members of the public to strap on a device they have zero training with, and figure out how to exit a plummeting jetliner, without hurting themselves. That’s next to impossible, for a few reasons.
Passengers. What are you going to do with Grandma? Or a lap baby? Or someone who’s wheelchair bound?
Exits. How are you going to exit the aircraft? Skydiving planes have specially designed doors. Passenger jetliners do not. Remember - that jet is moving at 500 miles per hour.

The large tail slicing through the sky is going to slice both you and your parachute to ribbons as you exit the aircraft.
Time. It takes 20 minutes to get ordinary people to WALK off an aircraft. Now you’re asking them to strap on a complicated piece of equipment they’ve never worn before, calmly queue up, and exit the aircraft. Besides, you KNOW some idiot is going to insist on bringing his carry-on bag with him.
Necessity. Imagine the Miracle on the Hudson? US Airways 1549 landed on the Hudson River in New York City.

Imagine if the parachute order was given? Grandma hanging in her chute, hanging off the Empire State building. Lap babies getting run over by taxi cabs. People landing in the Hudson and drowning because they can’t swim and they get tangled in their chute.

Nearly every single accident out there is better managed by putting the large metal tube in the hands of a skilled pilot, and attempting to bring the whole thing down in as safe a manner as possible.
No disrespect but I can't trust you with my life. I see a parachute mechanism, absolutely no other options, are you going to say "no, you wasn't trained to use it, just fall?"
You can opt to wear it yourself before you get on the flight. That is legally permitted in almost all countries and airlines that I know of:

You may transport parachutes, either with or without Automatic Activation Devices, in carry-on or checked bags.
Parachutes should always be packed separately from other baggage. If a TSA officer determines that a bag must be opened to inspect the parachute, you must be present to assist in the inspection. If you are not within the screening area, you will be paged using the airport intercom system; if you are not present to assist with screening the parachute, the parachute will not be allowed on the plane. For this reason, passengers with parachutes are encouraged to add 30 minutes to the airlines' recommended arrival window. TSA is not responsible for repacking parachutes. All parachutes should be thoroughly inspected at their end destination to make sure that the equipment is still safe to use.

So, if you want to take the initiative, this is up to you. Make sure to put it all on around your inner thighs, shoulders and such beforehand and hopefully have the backup on top of the primary (one getting jammed shouldn't be a death sentence but then again at the height the plane is at you're probably screwed either way).

Come on now, it's the same principle with a life vest. I never used one of them either. The stewardesses demonstrating doesn't help me.
Aside from the lie that the demonstration doesn't help, a life-vest is extremely simple to put on, most humans that aren't children, without prior training can put it on and won't bump into others while doing it. Even a child most likely can.
Not only that, but with all tech nowadays, what in the world is money being spent on if not to simplify the mechanics of an airborne safety device?
I could answer this with 'just search the answer on Google, DuckDuckGo or Bing' but I'll reply smarter:

It's being spent on the airplane's safety and awareness of weather and protocols in place for the pilot to safely navigate out of any situation that can realistically arise.

You probably would want to stay inside the plane in the hands of the pilot than go rogue and possibly land in front of racing vehicles which even if it doesn't hurt you will result in severe traffic delays and could cause other accidents amidst the chaos and fact that the shadow you create if it's daytime can blind certain drivers who don't have excellent eyesight and awareness.

Remember I said parachute mechanism, not necessarily a parachute.
What exactly do you mean? Are you actually saying you want a parachute out of the whole plane? And if that's the case, why not make it clear in the description? You said 'likewise' to life vests meaning one per passenger as an intuitive interpretation.

Whatever that parachute like mechanism is, it can be quite simple as a vest pushing a button or pulling a cord.
No, you said like a life vest which is one per passenger, you didn't ever imply it was a parachute from the entire aircraft itself and that's actually barely going to help because airplanes are built aerodynamically so if the airplane if falling fast it probably got ripped apart.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"The problem is that in the chaos, the odds are more towards an accident. You can't really parachute at the height that commercial airplanes fly at, you'll freeze up (literally get frozen at certain times and climates) and be very low on oxygen.


The chance you refer to ignores how cumbersome parachutes are to put on."

Come on, let me get a yes or no to this question.

So do we give a chance at survival with a parachute or none when free falling ?

"You’re asking a group of untrained members of the public to strap on a device they have zero training with, and figure out how to exit a plummeting jetliner, without hurting themselves. That’s next to impossible, for a few reasons.
Passengers. What are you going to do with Grandma? Or a lap baby? Or someone who’s wheelchair bound?
Exits. How are you going to exit the aircraft? Skydiving planes have specially designed doors. Passenger jetliners do not. Remember - that jet is moving at 500 miles per hour."

If the only choice is everyone falling to their deaths or using something to give them .0006 percent of a chance.......

Which would be chosen for survival?

"Next to impossible" is not the same as impossible.

"Next to impossible" represents that .0006 percent. Falling to inevitable death is zero percent.

Even when you know your body cannot breathe under water, the body will fight to survive.

I don't know about you or anybody else but I am willing to gamble. If they or the people that want to live will take a stab at something to try and live versus just accepting to die.

You're arguing it makes sense to accept to die even when you want to meet the goal to live rather than trying something you may or may not know about how it will help to meet that goal.

Even with that, take a chance to happen to get it right and operate the device properly.

We're facing imminent death , no point of return otherwise.

I know you're trying hard to be opposition's advocate, but it's a suicide position.

You can come up with a better argument than that.

The airlines at least provide life vests. They can do better than your argument.

Again I don't want to criticize the airlines. The reason that there would be no safety measure from a fatal free fall is highly suspected that it's something not related to the complications in attempt to life preservation as it's inconsistent .

I mean life vests can and fail sadly if not mistaken.

"Now you’re asking them to strap on a complicated piece of equipment they’ve never worn before, calmly queue up, and exit the aircraft. Besides, you KNOW some idiot is going to insist on bringing his carry-on bag with him."

I'm not asking them to do anything. If you or anyone would rather just fall to your death instead of trying to break the fall, well join the "jump off the bridge" mentality.

"Nearly every single accident out there is better managed by putting the large metal tube in the hands of a skilled pilot, and attempting to bring the whole thing down in as safe a manner as possible."

Not an option when the choice is between possibly breaking the fall or allowing the fall to break you.

Like I said, you're going to be airborne anyway. This is the scenario. We're not talking about other situations where something isn't necessary. We trying to cover all bases.

The plane is in mid air, the engines cut off , the thing is in a nose dive.

Some have the suicide mentality of just jumping off to their deaths. Not possible deaths but to their deaths. Just jumping off like those that jumped off the titanic into the water I suppose. Maybe that was just dramatize for the motion picture.

Anyway, people are free falling like from the twin towers.

I see this and I decide to use some sort of contraption to slow down my rate of a speed of a fall.

Mall slows down the fall from a height so tall.

It may not work, it may fail, it may be a very slim next to nothing chance.

As a matter of fact, a passenger like you is telling me there's no use . The passenger says "just comfort yourself, you had a good life, find solace in that." "Just face it, we're not going to make it".

This is perhaps why the passenger can say all this amidst the panic because the person is calm.

Just embrace what you think is your fate is the thought process in individuals.

See our thinking is not always right but can be faulty , thinking that it's not in error with this basis on probabilities and calculations.
But there is a thing called flight or fight, adrenaline, basic instinct, natural gut feeling.

All of these things in the mix.

Listening to the heart, not the statistics and so on.

When there looks like no chance, there's natural reflex to survive or preserve .

"You can opt to wear it yourself before you get on the flight. That is legally permitted in almost all countries and airlines that I know of:"

Thank you for not saying " no you can't use this device to decelerate your drop".

You're not so bad .

"Aside from the lie that the demonstration doesn't help"

You calling me a liar .

"most humans that aren't children, without prior training can put it on and won't bump into others while doing it. Even a child most likely can."

I liked for them to be saved with a parachute like mechanism as well. Are you against them being saved with that?

"It's being spent on the airplane's safety and awareness of weather and protocols in place for the pilot to safely navigate out of any situation that can realistically arise."

We have a long ways to go but it's a start. Meanwhile people's lives will hang in the balance.

"You probably would want to stay inside the plane in the hands of the pilot than go rogue"

Yes stay inside and hey probably no need for a life vest.

See if there is still a chance to land safely , by all means.

I'm just thinking when that scenario is out the window and there is no water around to drop in outside the plane window.

A lot of good for nothing the vest will do at that point.

"What exactly do you mean? Are you actually saying you want a parachute out of the whole plane? "

The airlines can come up with something that can act as a parachute. Just something with a harness that will break the fall instead of the fall breaking the bones and skull.

Who knows, with all the tech continuing to advance, attach something to that life vest to help you glide in the air as well as float in the water.

If by one day this makes it out to the world with my name attached to it, feel free to tell all you debated that person back when it was an idea.

You know a lot of people thought going to the moon was crazy, flying in the air , talking to someone not in proximity but from around the world was preposterous.

Many of these inventions started out with a pessimistic reception.

"And if that's the case, why not make it clear in the description?"

You don't know whether is something clear enough. You hear people say "hopefully I made myself clear " or " Do I make myself clear?"

That's why I tend to leave room for questions and comments for clarity.
The person that is looking to participate is invited to ask plenty of questions first to specially satisfy their understanding.

"You said 'likewise' to life vests meaning one per passenger as an intuitive interpretation."

Ok ,one per passenger . If it's effective for one device to bracket a few individuals, no problem if none presented.

"No, you said like a life vest which is one per passenger, you didn't ever imply it was a parachute from the entire aircraft itself and that's actually barely going to help because airplanes are built aerodynamically so if the airplane if falling fast it probably got ripped apart."

It doesn't matter. Here you're trying to find fault with the type of an invention that you think I'm proposing.

My position is not about presenting plans for an invention, type of an invention or how it should be designed.
Now feast your eyes on that second round that is more expounded in detail.

Key elements here of my position.

"The airline companies wish to provide protection of some sort as a survival measure."

We all for surviving I would think .

"It stands to reason to cover the many possible perils."

Why does it stand?

We all for surviving. Give me a way to survive drowning. Give me a way to survive a free fall into the earth or water.










Con
#8
Note: Pro has gone from saying that it would be 'like life vests' which as 1 per passenger to again having a vague message that even though barely any passenger will make any use of a parachute in the emergency (they'd need winter mountain-climbing type insulation to not freeze up there and an oxygen mask, the option to have a parachute on board isn't exactly relevant as they'd not allow you to jump off anyway but I guess when it's life or death you can be a psycho and force it open, just know you will be facing brutal freezing winds and endangering all on board even more as it will sway the plane by making severe air resistance inside and making the air thin (but then again they can drop the on-board attached oxygen masks it's just the tanks that aren't mobile).

Since Pro's scenario is one of complete absurdity and vagueness regarding if each passenger would be wearing one from the start or expected to put it on in the emergency, correctly fastened and all (which isn't feasible amidst the chaos), we are left without any practical application of Pro's suggestion for me to attack as there is no suggestion.

When I attacked the '1 per passenger' Pro implied something next level was being suggested by insisting it was only 'parachute mechanism' and not an actual parachute per passenger. Is it one per seat? Is it one for the whole plane? We were told 'like a life vest' in the debate topic/resolution so we can assume one per passenger and on their body to be attached.

My points all stand.