Slashdot Mirror
Pod Planes Could Change Travel Forever (cnn.com)
Max_W writes: Every year we hear about people dying in plane crashes. This does not have to continue as there is a new revolutionary pod plane design [in the works via the Clip-Air project]. A passenger pod is not heavy because it does not contain fuel, engines, avionics, etc., so in case of an accident it can be ejected and land on parachutes. The obstacle to this new invention is that the whole obsolete airport and airline infrastructure must be rebuilt. So what? Shall we continue to get killed because it is easier to produce aircraft with a design from 1950s? The Clip-Air project is created by Switzerland's Federal Polytechnic Institute and consists of the flying component, which includes airframe, cockpit and engines, and the capsules, which are a number of detachable pods that can act as cabin or cargo hold, depending on the chosen configuration. What's particularly noteworthy about them is that they can allow passengers to board capsules well before a flight, and at a location besides an airport, such as a local bus station. As with any concept, many years of research and tests will be needed to validate the concept and turn it into a reality. Claudio Leonardi, manager of the Clip-Air project, and his team are preparing to build a small-scale Clip-Air prototype. They have already initiated some contacts with the aerospace industry.
See; the XC120 Packplane - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.... Though the fact it didn't work in 1950, doesn't mean it can't work now. I keep an open mind.
However, the idea of sticking the pod on a railway waggon is a complete non-starter - I'm sure a pod that meets railway crash-resistance standards would be stupidly heavy for aviation use.
Off the top of my head:
1. "Every year we hear about people dying in plane crashes. This does not have to continue..." But air travel is already the safest mode of travel. Hear all those people screaming for new technology to make road travel safe? No? Well, they're the same ones that will take this up.
2. "Passengers might board a capsule at a local bus station and wake up in another city on the other side of the country, or planet, after a road, air and rail journey during which they didn't leave their seat." They don't seem to realise the blindingly obvious point that this is making air travel *worse*. Air travel already involves sitting in a seat for too long. Why would I opt for a mode of travel that exchanges a few minutes of having to be polite to people in the aisles for one that involves several hours more in the same damn seat?
3. If you want to see just how off-their-faces unrealistic this is, look no further than this sentence: "Clip-Air's researchers, who are also looking into the possibility of using biofuels or liquid hydrogen as alternative fuels, have already initiated some contacts with the aerospace industry." Oh, great! You're launching publicity for a total redesign of the entire global air freight and passenger industry and you've *already* initiated some contacts with the aerospace industry??? Really??? What made you do that so soon??? And looking into hydrogen as a fuel source for this is basically admitting, "It's so far off the page that we might as well throw in any futuristic-sounding crap we can." If you're doing this seriously, get one thing right at a time. Don't complicate it by also trying to introduce a fuel that no-one else has managed to make work yet.
People who consider themselves "aviation visionaries" (yes, an actual term used in the article) always, always get excited about this kind of thing for no good reason. They *think* people want revolutionary concepts that change how they board planes and let them work out then drink themselves silly in a trendy bar while they're in flight. What people *actually* want are revolutionary new concepts that cut the cost of air travel.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Editor mixed up 2 schools. This project is from EPFL (in Lausanne) as you can see from the project link and not the ETHZ (in Zurich) as stated.
Every 1-2 years (or after a major air crash) someone, somewhere suggests this idea. Which amounts to:
1. Aircraft to become more complex (e.g. heavy, expensive, failure-prone, carrying less passengers per unit of fuel)
2. The idea works only when aircraft is at high enough altitude for the 'chutes to work reasonably. So no profit in takeoff and landing (when most of crashes happen)
3. The idea works only when aircraft is slow enough for the "bus" and it's precious contents to survive aerodynamic hit and turbulence without having shape and controls of an airplane, rocket or something similar. So no profit at marching speed, either.
And yes, 2 and 3 pretty much cover the whole flight.
4. Bombs inside and missiles outside still invariably fatal.
Sorry. Back to fighting terrorism, training pilots and engineering better avionics.
Scenario 1: Pilot crashes the plane to the mountain. No help from pods as there was no accident.
Scenario 2: Big country fires a missile to destroy the plane. Unlikely for the pods to help as whole system probably explodes.
There are some scenarios where this can help. E.g. if pilot realizes that he has lost control of the plane and there is enough altitude for parachutes to open.
So what is needed is some statistics. How big impact could this really have?
Then we should compare this to some alternative methods, e.g. robot pilots, more strict airplane control etc. And compare cost vs. amount of saved lives. It should also be remembered that new technology always has some unexpected problems, so people will get killed because of this technology if it is taken into use.
Most commercial aircraft accidents happen at take-off and landing and at under 2,000ft altitude (bird strikes, wind shear anomalies, etc). Standard parachute systems don't have time to deploy and dissipate sufficient velocity before impact to be of any worth. The only way a modular system as described could be effective for the majority of scenarios that involve very low altitudes with current tech is if the modules were equipped with a computer-controlled rocket braking/thruster system and automated landing system.
In the US the one area of air transportation infrastructure that is both in the worst state and probably one of the largest factors in air transport safety is the air traffic control system. It's been a mess since at least the 1970s. There were still vital systems and equipment that dated from the '70s in service up to the late '90s (and there may still be some in service I'm unaware of).
There have been a few half-hearted attempts to throw money at the problem but, as usual, most of the money is squandered on upgrade projects in the hands of the usual politically-connected cronies and the money mysteriously evaporates in endless cost-overruns, delays, and failures to deliver.
If the goal was actually to make a relatively large improvement in air safety and a wise appropriation of funds (if they are tied to effective and pragmatic oversight combined with meaningful penalties), the US' air traffic control system would be a great place to start.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
massive increase? what massive increase? their have been a couple of high publicity crashes but no significant increase.
If you want near zero deaths in commercial aviation, you only need to look to the present. Last year there were exactly zero passenger deaths from western built jets if you exclude acts of violence. (Parachutes won't save you from a bomb) That is a number that includes 3.7 billion tickets and 32 million miles of flying.
I expect to see pod-planes for general cargo before 2025.
You already have this today. Here's a typical 747 cargo-pod configuration:
https://www.ups.com/aircargo/i...
Here are the pods going in:
http://www.ainonline.com/sites...
A stat I like to pull out from time to time to help keep things in perspective: On average 60 million people die every day worldwide. A bit over 4,000 of those are the result of violence, and in 2015, with by far the highest number of terrorism deaths on record, only about 90 of those were the result of terrorism.
The level of fear and policy-making around terrorism is completely ungrounded in reality.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.