Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fire protection suits

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fire protection suits

    As far as I know, an element of many airplane crashes is fire after landing failure. And it is often known in advance, that the landing may fail. Chances of survival of the passengers and crew could be greater if they would put on them thermoinsulating suits, reflecting infrared, with gas masks to reduce toxic smoke influence (glases of the masks should also reflect infrared). Of course these suits must be fire-proof. The gas filter should contain material with big thermal capacity, so that the air drawn into the lungs would be colder than that surrounding. When breathing out, the material would get colder submitting heat to the air coming out the lungs. I think this is possible to ensure that the air going into the lungs has temperature <60 centigrades.


    I know that there is a problem of fitting the suits to different persons, especially children. But I think this is worth. If not, at least gas masks (covering neck) and gloves should be available, because scars on the head, neck and hands are especially obnoxious, and these areas are not covered by own suits of people.


    Notice, that the passenger planes are equipped with life-jackets for all passengers, for the event of water landing, which usually does not give survival chances. And in the water this is also important to ensure thermal insulation. The suits could also work as life-jackets if they had foam filling. The suit could be filled with the foam after putting on, if we used foam in spray, like the foam used to repair car tyres (=tires).


    I want to point out, that there exists a compound (possibly silver oxide, AgO?), used in modern windows for thermal insulation. Even a very thin layer of it causes significant reduction of the thermal transmission. So a layer of it could be one of layers of such fire-protecting suits.

  • #2
    Noted.

    Comment


    • #3
      Great idea, however flying is still the safest travel form today. It just gets a huge amount of media attention over car accidents.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh boy, we have a new one!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
          Oh boy, we have a new one!
          You know, I've been thinking there's a better way for you guys to confirm that runways are clear when you cross them. Wanna hear it?
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Brenden S View Post
            Great idea, however flying is still the safest travel form today. It just gets a huge amount of media attention over car accidents.
            Absolutely correct. Reason is there are more safety checks done by professionals vs you just hopping in your car and driving away without anyone doing ANY sort of checks. One thing I always wondered though, why not provide parachutes under all seats / inflatable boats if you are about to crash on water.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ericlobster View Post
              Absolutely correct. Reason is there are more safety checks done by professionals vs you just hopping in your car and driving away without anyone doing ANY sort of checks. One thing I always wondered though, why not provide parachutes under all seats / inflatable boats if you are about to crash on water.
              Is one of you named Vladimir Tatarenko?

              Remember this crackpot idea?

              Detachable cabin invented to save lives during plane crasheshttps://youtu.be/zDBU-O0m-nQ


              Sure. Why didn't I think of that. Of course goodbye to the flight crew, as the massive shift in CoG and loss of structural integrity would ensure loss of control and structural failure (and goodbye to the people on the ground where those parts land). And, of course, goodbye to low-wing aircraft, as the keel beam would have to be above the fuselage. And of course, goodbye to the passengers (and people on the ground) if the pax compartment lands in an unfortunate place. ANd, of course, I can count on one hand the number of crashes I've ever heard of where the crew knew there was no chance of landing safely, yet had time to set all this up...

              Versus...

              Buzzzzz...

              "Oh damn, I meant the door switch, not the cabin eject switch..."

              Comment


              • #8
                Parachutes for each passenger are reasonable

                Originally posted by Ericlobster View Post
                why not provide parachutes under all seats / inflatable boats if you are about to crash on water.
                I don't know (I am not a pilot), but I think there would be a psychological problem to jump. As far as I know, novice parachute jumpers often wait several minutes before they jump. However I think this is worth to have parachutes for every passenger, may be instead of thermoinsulating suits.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adam_23 View Post
                  I don't know (I am not a pilot), but I think there would be a psychological problem to jump. As far as I know, novice parachute jumpers often wait several minutes before they jump. However I think this is worth to have parachutes for every passenger, may be instead of thermoinsulating suits.
                  ....talking of crackpot ideas !!! Are you really thinking that you could bail out of an aircraft doing 200 odd mph ?
                  If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X