By: Kyle James | 04-17-2018 | News
Photo credit: Vladimir Tatarenko

Ukraine Engineer Wants To Build A Detachable Passenger Cabin

||| Vladimir Tatarenko |||

A Ukrainian aviation engineer has come up with a not-so-conventional solution to a very contemporary problem, how do you ensure the passengers of an airline survive a catastrophic failure mid-flight? When something goes wrong on aircraft at 30,000 feet, it goes really wrong. There is really no way despite massive leaps in aviation technology to get passengers to the ground safely when something goes wrong.

Related coverage: <a href="http://thegoldwater.com/news/23355-Latest-Video-Southwest-Flight-1380">Latest Video: Southwest Flight 1380</a>

Vladimir Tatarenko, a Ukrainian aviation engineer, had a proposal a couple years ago that is starting to look mighty fine. His aircraft design would see a detachable cabin section built into the aircraft's fuselage that could separate and parachute to safety in the event of an emergency. That might sound rather ridiculous but is it really? When faced with an alternative of a fiery death or a chance at survival wouldn't you opt for the chance to survive no matter how small?

A smaller version of what Tatarenko is proposing already exists. The Cirrus Aircraft company produces several small-engine aircraft that feature a parachute system to get the aircraft to the ground if the engine were to lose power or some other significant problem occurred mid-flight. The feature has made Cirrus one of the top-selling small private plane makers in the world.

Related coverage: <a href="http://thegoldwater.com/news/23388-ICE-Goes-Strong-In-New-York-Netting-225-Arrests-In-Operation-Keep-Safe">ICE Goes Strong In New York Netting 225 Arrests In "Operation Keep Safe"</a>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Eyewitness video shows the Southwest Flight 1380 emergency landing from a passenger perspective. At least one person was rushed to the hospital with unknown injuries <a href="https://t.co/FdMymlzMMg">https://t.co/FdMymlzMMg</a> <a href="https://t.co/ecUMzEEl7f">pic.twitter.com/ecUMzEEl7f</a></p>&mdash; Eyewitness News (@ABC7NY) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC7NY/status/986293577637597185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 17, 2018</a></blockquote>

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Recently, a series of close-calls has befallen commercial jet company Southwest Airlines. Passengers aboard where the engine exploded and nearly sucked a passenger out of a window barely made home Tuesday, the passenger who was partially sucked out of the plane did not survive. Why not take a new look at the problem of surviving a jet crash and consider some new technology such as what Tatarenko is suggesting?

<i>On Twitter:</i>

<a href="https://twitter.com/MAGASyndicate">@MAGASyndicate</a>

Tips? Info? Send me a message!

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2016/01/20/detached-from-reality-jetliner-with-a-detachable-passenger-cabin-sounds-cool-but-is-laughable/#5a4af7c54191

||| Science |||

Twitter: #Airline #Ukraine #Aviation #Engineer #Tatarenko #Detachable #Cabin

Share this article
Thoughts on the above story? Comment below!
2 Comment/s
Anonymous No. 23401 2018-04-18 : 08:25

Having the Rear stabilizing flaps as part of the cabin area ( as pictured) would increase technical issues 10x fold .

But I could see and like having a cabin section that slides in to the fully functional separate working jet body.

Now think of the possible multi use designs:

freight,

in flight refueler,

a cluster box of GBU-43/B (MOAB),

or passenger compartments as needed.

UPS and FEDEX could benefit from such a design concept.

Anonymous No. 23437 2018-04-18 : 15:01

This would be a great idea for UPS and FedEx like the previous anon stated but for passenger flights I doubt it would save much time. If the fuel was part of the cabin load out maybe? Normally the time it takes to unplane, straighten up the cabin, and load up the new passengers and luggage is about the same time it takes to refuel and do a preflight inspection, so the gains would be minimal as they would have to disconnect the pass chamber and reconnect the new one and that process would probably take the same amount of time as todays flight loading. The only gain I see with pass flights and this design is another failure point where human error could cause a problem. The preflight inspection would still need to be preformed after the new pass compartment was attached so where's the time savings?

What do you think about this article?
Name
Comment *
Image

Recent News

Popular Stories