Has anyone else ever wondered why cars have a large list of safety features but safety features and crash protocols for planes has stopped at strap on an oxygen mask and pray to your god?
We can land rockets shot into space on a small platform in the ocean. Why can't we save a plane with an engine failure?
have you ever fucking read plane safety procedure
no
Planes move much faster, are made of weaker materials and don't exactly come to a stop if they crash.
They have to be made of light, weak materials in order to actually fly, and they're going hundreds of miles per hour.
It's hard thing to make a soft landing if one were going to crash.
More development goes into making engine failure less likely than learning how to make a giant tube of alluminium crash in a soft manner.
Tl:dr
Why make it more durable if you can prevent the chance of it crashing at all?
Because humans have never made something that won't fail.
I think the real reason is that the rate of failure is within the boundary of acceptable losses. That and cost are the only reason in my mind. You don't have to save the plane, but you can try and save the passengers.
>We can land rockets shot into space on a small platform in the ocean. Why can't we save a plane with an engine failure?
We can make an olympian clear 2.4m in a jump, why can't we make an averagely fit guy with broken legs jump a waist high fence?
Take a long fucking look at the car and airplane safety records year over year. The come back and /thread this yourself.
Alternate theory: make the Human stronger
>Why can't we save a plane with an engine failure?
But we can. Pilots have done it several times.
...
because you want your plane ticket to cost $200 not $20000.
>Why can't we save a plane with an engine failure?
You clearly haven't even seen a plane in RL.
Engine failures are barely noteworthy. Simply because recovering from a failed engine is easy as fuck.
>place engine in idle
>cut off fuel to it
>apply trim to the side with a failed engine
>continue journey
Why not planes with more than one engine?
Multiple engine failures have been known to happen, though uncommon.
Some airliners have even managed to run out of fuel. A few have even managed to land afterward.
It's extremely easy to land with one, two, or no engines at all of the pilot isn't a hack
Also why do you think safety stops at the passengers? They're be the ones that cause a deadly crash, not the trained pilot with 10+ years of experience, thousands upon thousands of in-flight hours, with hours of constant plane inspection, and not one but 4 separate certifications saying that he knows how to save your sorry ass if there is a mechanical issue.
>botnet related
if a plane is in a nose dive and there is no hope to save it(the aircraft) that still means all those passengers are trapped in a tin can heading straight for the sea or land.
The point is, just like the ejection seat, the person in an aircraft should be able to escape said aircraft if there is a failure. Not just stuff them in there and shrug if a problem comes up.
Gimli Glider.
Air Canada airliner ran out of fuel because the wrong sender for the fuel gauges was installed.
This was not too long after Canada switched to metric system.
>It's extremely easy to land with one, two, or no engines at all of the pilot isn't a hack
Planes aren't really designed to be gliders. It isn't "extremely easy" but it is something pilots are trained for.
Though it is always possible a pilot will brainfart and cause a deadly crash, like that Air France Airbus that pancaked into the Atlantic not that many years ago because one of the pilots caused it to stall and wouldn't stop pulling back on the stick.
There are exits, and passenger parachutes were tried and found to be WAAAY too expensive.
The point is that planes are overbuilt to prevent the nosedive from ever becoming a possibility.
If half the plane literally exploded, the pilot would still have enough control to remain level in the air, even if it's so bad it's impossible to land
You can believe that 400mph in a tin can is dangerous, but until you hit the ground you have an unbelievable amount of control in a calm, atmospheric sea, and backup controls as well. If your engine exploded you could still easily land (even private pilots have to learn how to land broken planes), if all your controls fail you will still have manual, tension-wired controls. If your fucking landing gear motor breaks you have a manual hydraulic pump to crack it out yourself, there's several specific methods to crash land safely, if a modern plane crashes under a competent pilot, then there must have been an intentional fault or an intentional lack of preparation/inspection or you're way out in the ocean and are fucked
Crash landings are fairly simple, I've had to make a crash landing once and it wasn't a big deal at all other than $15k basically down the drain (since even though it still flew and flew well, FAA aircraft inspection and maintenance is extremely scrutinous and even more so when you get into for-profit flying, and WAY more so when you get into FAA airliner flying
basically, FAA airliner pilots are overpaid and almost entirely paid on experience, because they HAVE to adhere to some of the most ridiculous and overbearing standards. Flying yourself is a different story but you better believe no major airliner leaves the airport without a complete and redundant aircraft clearance. Theres no old planes flying for profit. There's no broken planes flying for profit. There's no unmaintained planes flying for FAA airlines and there's no noobish scrubs piloting those.
Yeah the problem only ensures if you don't have enough power to keep a minimum of speed.
>747
>3 Engines fail
Fucked.
Well you should always have the speed or altitude for a short-hand crash-land. If you're breaking down during takeoff then you have bigger problems than the 500 nigger souls on board