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.

Comments

Likely won't eventuate

[inflex]

The mass penalty / structural workarounds, and the low incentive (given how few fatal crashes there are with air travel) will see this being pushed to the "amusing thought" pile and no real further. Much like massive parachutes from a long time ago ( some people use them on their smaller planes though ).

Re:Likely won't eventuate

[pr0t0]

Agreed. I'm not an engineer. but this design does not look like it is more aerodynamically efficient than current commercial aircraft. That in turn means it will likely consume more fuel, which probably makes it a non-starter. It's tempting to envision some efficiency gained by being able to load travelers into multiple pods simultaneously instead of into the aircraft itself...through one door. But then those pods have to be transported and secured to the underbelly which would likely take longer. Terminals maybe wouldn't have to be as large since you wouldn't have to safely accommodate the wingspan of the aircraft, but you'd need to rebuild the entire airport infrastructure to do it. It just doesn't make sense.

You know what also doesn't make sense? This tagline from one of the photos: Seamless transfer - In theory, Clip-Air passengers could board a bus in one country, then travel by road, rail and air without leaving the comfort of the same seat.

Apparently, the person that wrote that doesn't travel much.

Re:Likely won't eventuate

[NatasRevol]

Why do we need near zero deaths in aviation?

It's still about the safest form of transport there is.

Spend the big $$ on better car automation. Build automation-only highways.

Dozens of deaths vs tens of thousands of deaths.

Colour me skeptical...

[Zontar The Mindless]

I fail to see how this will eliminate air fatalities. Don't the majority of crashes occur on takeoff or landing?

One example that springs to mind is the Tenerife disaster of 1977, in which two airliners collided on the ground as one of them was taking off. Capsules with parachutes would not have helped a bit AFAICT.

Thanks to /. for posting this story while I'm 10 thousand metres or so above the Skagerrak and making me feel a bit special.

Wrong focus

[fuzzyf]

I don't get it.
Airtravel is one of the safest way to travel. I know the fear of flying is common, but actual dying is not.

If you want to rebuild an entire transport-infrastructure because of accidents involving people dying, then I suggest you start with cars and roads.

Re:Wrong focus

[fuzzyf]

No, that is not what I meant.
560 people died in airplane accidents last year.
The proposed solutions is to rebuild the entire airtravel infrastructure in order to reduce that number.

I'm suggesting that if you are going to use that much money to reduce fatalities, then it would be much better spent on roads and cars. Where many more people die each year (est. 1.25 million in 2010).

Re: Wrong focus

[orlanz]

No, actually, it kind of does mean that. We don't have unlimited resources. Every field out there chooses to solve the easy and/or big problem. No one chooses to solve the insignificant one. Especially not the insignificant hard one.

Thank god

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's finally found a multibillion dollar solution to our nonexistent problem. Could you imagine the death toll if we don't drive down the 1 in a million accident rate? It could reach the thousands if we lump several years together!

What?

[joh]

"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."

It contains the passengers (the payload) and is one of the major structural components of the plane, so it is heavy anyway. And if it has to be structurally sound enough to be ejected and land it will be even heavier. Big parachutes for heavy loads are not easy or lightweight too.

Besides, air travel is very safe already and this wouldn't change anything about crashes during take-off and landings.

I mean, yes, do designs and try to sell them. I doubt someone will buy this though.

It's an interesting idea, but this line is bunk

[NoNeeeed]

This is an intersting idea, and it would be fun to see it developed further, but this line really stuck out.

"Shall we continue to get killed because it is easier to produce aircraft with a design from 1950s?"

Bullshit. I'm not saying some improvement in air crash survivability isn't a good thing, but the idea that people are regularly dying because their aeroplane can't disassemble in midair and parachute them to the ground it frankly offensive to all the engineers who have worked over the years to make large scale commercial flying unbelievably safe.

Total number of air craft fatalities worldwide in commercial flight has been significantly less than 1000 per year for the last couple of decades. Something like 3.6 billion passenger journeys will be completed in 2016 (IATA estimate).

Safety is the single worst reason to throw away a tried and tested basic design that is fantastically safe and replace it with a much more complicated and new system.