ijk@hropus.UUCP (Ihor J. Kinal) (01/03/86)
From Letters to the Editor, NY Times (1/3/86). "As what is being called the worst year in commercial aviation history comes to a horrendous close, I have yet to hear a single voice raised, in any journalistic medium, asking, 'Must they die?' Instead, Government investigators and news media ask, 'Why did it crash?' Have we been brainwashed into believing that aircraft deaths are inevitable in a crash? "They are not. Even beyond the degradation of safety that is a very probable result of deregulation and the elimination of experienced controllers is the refusal by all concerned to recognize the existence of an aircraft design that would not only reduce the potential for 'accidents,' but would even guarantee the survival of most occupants in air crashes. If my statements are exaggerated or incorrect, my errors would be pointed out to all the world. But proven facts can no longer be ignored." "The reasons people don't survive crashes have been recited ad nauseum since the 1950's: too high landing and takeoff speeds; too weak fuselage structural strength; fuel within the fuselage; engines and landing gear mounted on the fuel-tank structure; seats not connected strongly enough to keep passengers restrained; seats not turned around (facing the rear) to absorb most of the energy of impact; plastic materials in the passenger cabin that smoulder and give off deadly gasses. "The evolution of the modern passenger plane has only served to aggravate these design failures. Why aren't these things corrected? Because it's impossible with today's airplane design. From Orville and Wilbur Wright's all-lifting-surface aircraft, the modern jet passenger plane has become a minimum-lift projectile, with only 15 percent of its structural weight surrounding its precious cargo. "Then why don't we change the design? Why don't we adopt a concept developed in 1921, one that returns to the all-lifting-surface ideal by providing a fuselage shaped like a wing section? The vast increase in lift permits stronger materials to be used; landing and takeoff speeds to be cut in half; shorter runways, and greater capacity, with reduction in fuel consumption. "This design was turned into real-life airplanes at least eight times. It was seen as the answer to the ills of air transportation cited above by the great names of flying of the 1930's and the war- years 1941-1945. It proved its superiority in 1935 in a high-speed crash that resulted in no fire, no injuries and an intact passenger cabin. In fact, Boeing considered it superior to its own conventional plane (at least as a cargo carrier) a few years ago but dropped it for no announced reason. "Yet we won't even acknowledge the existence of the Burnelli lifting-body. Shouldn't the world's governments pool their resources to replace all conventional passenger planes with this truly safe plane within a year or two? Who could possibly be opposed?" Edmund J. Cantilly ------------------------------------------------- The NY Times added: "The writer, executive director of the Institute for Safety in Transportation, is professor of transportation and safety engineering at Polytechnic University." --------------------------------------------------- Well, net readers, any comments on these proposals? Prof Cantilly's credential seem good, and I see no flaws in his presentation. Also, what about re-hiring the terminated air-controllers?? I believe they've been severely punished for their actions, and that the current state of air-traffic controlling is near chaos (the number of near-misses has climbed dramatically). Anyone want to add to this?? Ihor Kinal (not a pilot,not a former air-traffic controller, just a concerned user of the product; and if your not concerned after last year, well...............) houxm!hropus!ijk P.S. Not reproduced was a 'cute' picture of a flying wing with people looking out portholes. It did draw my attention to the article, so I suppose it was worthwhile.
ron@r2d2.UUCP (Ron Schweikert) (01/06/86)
> From Letters to the Editor, NY Times (1/3/86). > > "As what is being called the worst year in commercial aviation > history comes to a horrendous close, I have yet to hear a single voice > raised, in any journalistic medium, asking, 'Must they die?' Instead, > Government investigators and news media ask, 'Why did it crash?' Have > we been brainwashed into believing that aircraft deaths are inevitable > in a crash? > > Well, net readers, any comments on these proposals? Prof Cantilly's > credential seem good, and I see no flaws in his presentation. (Rest of article deleted) Many, many new designs have been made for aircraft that would make them more efficient and safe. We've all seen them (canards, rear-facing seats to name only two of many). From articles I've read, it seems that the major reason they aren't being used is the perceived (?) response from the public. I have sat in rear-facing seats on military aircraft. It's easy to get used to, and obviously (excuse me, apparently since I've not actually seen results in tests) much more safe. It must be tremendously expensive to completely re-tool for changes in commercial aircraft design. Would be interested in hearing from others how someone could effect these changes. Would it require a private firm to enter the arena? Public awareness/grass-roots involvement? I suspect the all-mighty dollar is unfortunately the greatest determinator of safety currently. Hate to say that. I love aviation. By the way, I don't feel severely curtailing general aviation operations is the answer to the "crowded" or unsafe skies. Yes, we do have to take a hard look at our training and usage of the skies though. We better start lobbying for ourselves, or others who don't know the utility and benefits of general aviation will do it for us. Happy flying. Ron Schweikert CFII, ASMEL, glider Boulder, Colorado -- ...{allegra|hao|ucbvax}nbires!r2d2!ron (USENET)
dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) (01/07/86)
> I have sat in rear-facing seats on military aircraft. It's easy > to get used to, and obviously (excuse me, apparently since I've not actually > seen results in tests) much more safe. It must be tremendously expensive > to completely re-tool for changes in commercial aircraft design. I have ridden backward a couple of times in a Saberliner. The deck angle seemed higher than riding frontward on an airliner, but I haven't ridden frontward on a Saberliner or backward on an airliner. I think the worry about public reaction is due to the comfort of being pressed into one's seat vs. the feeling of hanging by a seat belt. (But I thought it was great fun.) As far as retooling: what is the expense of bolting the seats in the other way? The planes are designed for interior customization to the airline. The first/coach class mix changes, the galleys can move, or they can put in carry-on luggage racks. There are quick change versions, which carry passengers by day and freight on the main deck at night. David Smith hplabs!dsmith dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/08/86)
> "The reasons people don't survive crashes have been recited ad > nauseum since the 1950's: too high landing and takeoff speeds; too weak > fuselage structural strength; fuel within the fuselage; engines and landing > gear mounted on the fuel-tank structure; seats not connected strongly > enough to keep passengers restrained; seats not turned around (facing the rear) to absorb most of the energy of impact; plastic materials in the > passenger cabin that smoulder and give off deadly gasses. I trust we're talking about airliners here? I don't want *my* seat turned backwards -- how'm I gonna reach the controls that way? :-) Getting serious... there is no question in my mind that the structural design of the seats (and their attachment to the plane) is probably the single biggest contributor to the injury/fatality rate of airplane crashes. The current "norm" is a crime. Facing the seats backward won't help a bit if they fall apart or rip loose from the floor. While I will grant that from a crashworthiness standpoint having backward seats is like "chicken soup, it can't hurt", I don't think it'd help much, either. The primary lethal force in a crash is downward, not forward. You'd get a lot better results from having a controlled-crush seatframe (a la JAARS) than from mounting the seats backwards. And I wouldn't like flying in a backward seat. I must be ignorant about the "deadly gas" issue, because I had thought that this was addressed a long time ago. I know for sure that I can't legally use such materials to reupholster my puddle-jumper. As for fuselage strength, I don't believe that they're too flimsy. They hold up pretty well in a crash. Well, except for that DC-10 that overran the end of the runway at Boston Logan and the front fell off into the water, killing the cockpit crew. Now what to do about fuel... the author of the letter doesn't want it in the fuselage, nor over the landing gear, nor near the engines. Perhaps continuous inflight refueling is the answer? :-) Seriously, it has to go somewhere. I don't think we have an answer yet, and I do think that it is being actively investigated. > "Then why don't we change the design? Why don't we adopt a concept > developed in 1921, one that returns to the all-lifting-surface ideal > by providing a fuselage shaped like a wing section? The vast increase in > lift permits stronger materials to be used; landing and takeoff speeds to > be cut in half; shorter runways, and greater capacity, with reduction > in fuel consumption. Only one teeny little detail that wasn't mentioned. The resulting plane would only be able to go 200-300 mph. Of course, in 1921 they weren't worried about that as a limiting speed :-) With an increase in lift comes an inevitable increase in drag. It is difficult to achieve high speeds with high lift, because drag increases with the square of speed. The only practical way to achieve high speed is to have low drag, and that means low lift. In order to obtain a 150 mph takeoff/landing speed and still keep a 600 mph cruise, airliners require complex arrangements of wing flaps and slats which allow the pilot to effectively change the shape of the wing from a high-lift airfoil (for take-off and landing) to a low-drag airfoil (for cruise). > Shouldn't the world's governments pool their resources > to replace all conventional passenger planes with this truly safe plane > within a year or two? Who could possibly be opposed?" Get the *government* involved? No way. Replace every single airliner in the world (at taxpayer expense)? You gotta be kidding. > [From the person who passed along the letter to the net:] > > Also, what about re-hiring the terminated air-controllers?? "If having some controllers is safe, then having a lot is safer." People seem to believe this. But you'd be hard-pressed to find an accident which would have been prevented if we had more controllers. Controllers cannot do a thing to prevent single-plane accidents (which comprise virtually all aviation accidents). Their job is to keep planes from running into each other. Very few such accidents occur. And when they do occur, far too often the aircraft involved were already under ATC control (e.g. the PSA 727 midair in San Diego a few years ago, and the Cherokee/biz-jet crash a few weeks ago). > I believe they've been severely punished for their actions... It's not a question of punishment. It's like this: the controllers who walked off the job showed, by that action, that they would rather endanger the air traveler than to work within the system to resolve their differences. Anyone with that attitude belongs o-u-t out. I am aware that "working within the system" was unduly difficult. But that is still no excuse for treating the safety of passengers with such indifference. If a person is willing to sacrifice my personal safety merely to increase his clout in a labor dispute, then I refuse to entrust my personal safety to that person. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (01/08/86)
The question to ask is: "Is the general public willing to fly in an airplane that is designed to crash?" Safety doesn't sell; ask the auto industry.
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/09/86)
> The question to ask is: "Is the general public willing to fly in an airplane > that is designed to crash?" > > Safety doesn't sell; ask the auto industry. There was a recent article in Aviation Consumer that picked the airplanes in each of several categories with the best and worst safety records. In essentially all cases, the safest airplane was the most popular, by a fairly wide margin. Are you still sure safety doesn't sell?
rl@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Robert Langridge%CGL) (01/10/86)
The RAF (Royal Air Force, not Rutan Aircraft Factory :-) put rearward facing seats in their passenger transport aircraft many years ago (like over 30). I don't know whether they still do, and will find out if no-one on the net responds with information. I do remember a discussion in "Flight" in which the obvious question arose of whether this configuration improved survivability in crashes of RAF transports. The answer (some years ago, as I said) was "We don't know, we haven't had any". Bob Langridge rl@ucsfcgl (ARPA, UUCP, BITNET) Computer Graphics Laboratory University of California +1 415 476 2630 San Francisco CA 94143 +1 415 476 1540
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (01/11/86)
In article <4785@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > >> The question to ask is: "Is the general public willing to fly in an airplane >> that is designed to crash?" >> >> Safety doesn't sell; ask the auto industry. > >There was a recent article in Aviation Consumer that picked the airplanes >in each of several categories with the best and worst safety records. >In essentially all cases, the safest airplane was the most popular, >by a fairly wide margin. Are you still sure safety doesn't sell? Perhaps this is due to a difference between the education of pilots, which stresses the presence of risks and their management, and the education (or lack thereof) of automobile drivers and airline passengers. Or maybe people who don't like thinking about risks just don't become pilots, but form a majority of the population?
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (01/11/86)
> > The question to ask is: "Is the general public willing to fly in an airplane > > that is designed to crash?" > > In essentially all cases, the safest airplane [is] the most popular, > by a fairly wide margin. That may be, but nobody has tried backwards seats on airliners hereabouts; the safety improvements tend to be independent of passenger comfort matters. I would certainly refuse to ride in one, given a choice. One of the things that makes travel pleasurable for me is watching what goes by the window, and I don't appreciate being forced to watch it recede rather than advance. (I'm not speaking hypothetically; I have traveled backwards, though not by air. In Britain, and I think Europe generally, half the seats on trains face backwards, and if the train is busy there may be no choice. For that matter, similar conditions apply on the Toronto subway.) There may be a greater chance of surviving a crash in a backwards seat, but the odds of having the crash in the first place are long enough that this member of the general public would rather be comfortable. Mark Brader
wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (01/12/86)
> I have sat in rear-facing seats on military aircraft. It's easy > to get used to, and obviously (excuse me, apparently since I've not actually > seen results in tests) much more safe. Hmmmfff. This argument comes up occasionally. Rear-facing seats are not safer in an accide: 1. Extensive testing has shown little difference, and; 2. Seat-related injuries in accidents are not due to the pressure of the belt around the passenger's gut; neither are they due to noggins impacting the back of the foam-covered seat in front. When seats contribute to injuries, it is due to the entire seat assembly breaking free... with passengers still in their seats. If I remember right, the seats are only required to withstand 9 Gs... in a *single* axis. When this rule was written, 9 Gs was believed to be the limit the human body could stand, which tells you how old this rule is. Read the accident reports in Aviation Leak, they usually give the cause of death of the occupants. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja) My views are not necessarily those of the Boeing Aerospace Company. Besides, BAC doesn't even build airplanes, so there!
brent@poseidon.UUCP (Brent P. Callaghan) (01/13/86)
I had occasion a couple of years ago to fly on a Royal New Zealand
Airforce Andover aircraft. It's civilian designation is a
Hawker-Siddley 748. It's passenger seating was all rear-facing.
It took some getting used to. It's unusual looking out the window
and watch the landscape moving backward.
I've also ridden in it's paratroop contiguration. We sat on
long bench seats running the length of the cabin. The restrains
were unusual: seatbelts plus a nylon net wrapped around my
forward-facing side.
--
Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan
AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
{ihnp4|mtuxo|pegasus}!poseidon!brent
(201) 576-3475bl@hplabsb.UUCP (01/13/86)
> > The question to ask is: "Is the general public willing to fly in an airplane > > that is designed to crash?" > > > > Safety doesn't sell; ask the auto industry. > > There was a recent article in Aviation Consumer that picked the airplanes > in each of several categories with the best and worst safety records. > In essentially all cases, the safest airplane was the most popular, > by a fairly wide margin. Are you still sure safety doesn't sell? Yes. Good for Cessna for making their planes safe. People buy vehicles for style, comfort, speed, and above all, price. Safety usually comes at the bottom of the list. How many aircraft owners have 5 point seat harnesses installed? How many pilots (and their passengers) fly with crash helmets? Again in the auto industry, how many people bought seat belts when they were an option instead of mandatory? How many people today buy air bags?
ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst) (01/13/86)
[article refering to "all-lifting-surface" aircraft.] > >Only one teeny little detail that wasn't mentioned. The resulting plane >would only be able to go 200-300 mph. Of course, in 1921 they weren't >worried about that as a limiting speed :-) > >With an increase in lift comes an inevitable increase in drag. It is >difficult to achieve high speeds with high lift, because drag increases >with the square of speed. The only practical way to achieve high speed >is to have low drag, and that means low lift. > >Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug Only one teeny little detail wrong here. Parasitic drag increases by the square of the velocity but induced drag DECREASES with an increase in velocity. We must assume that an airplane designed today will be reasonably clean (no struts, wires, wheels, etc hanging in the air flow) so parasitic drag would be kept to a minimum. We all know that circa 1921 airplanes has everything hanging out and it is this factor that limited airspeed. To the best of my knowledge (I'm not an aerodynamicist) there is no direct relationship between high lifting airfoils and induced drag per se. I don't believe that airspeed would be limited just because an aircraft was designed on "all-lifting-surface" principles. > . > . > . > . > . >As for fuselage strength, I don't believe that they're too flimsy. >They hold up pretty well in a crash. Well, except for that DC-10 that >overran the end of the runway at Boston Logan and the front fell off >into the water, killing the cockpit crew. > The cockpit crew was not killed in this crash. The fuselage seperated behind the cockpit and two front row passengers were, presumably, thrown from the aircraft and drowned in Boston harbor. The bodies were never recovered. Don't mind my ramblings. I'm just some guy thats been flying hang gliders for 11 years and just got his single engine ticket ( should have the sail plane rating by the spring soaring season). Tony Verhulst.
biagioni@unc.UUCP (01/16/86)
In article <1029@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: >That may be, but nobody has tried backwards seats on airliners hereabouts; >the safety improvements tend to be independent of passenger comfort matters. >I would certainly refuse to ride in one, given a choice. One of the things >that makes travel pleasurable for me is watching what goes by the window, >and I don't appreciate being forced to watch it recede rather than advance. > >(I'm not speaking hypothetically; I have traveled backwards, though not by > air. In Britain, and I think Europe generally, half the seats on trains > face backwards, and if the train is busy there may be no choice. For that > matter, similar conditions apply on the Toronto subway.) >Mark Brader I have traveled backwards too, and do so whenever I get a chance. European trains do offer the option of sitting with your back to the engine, if you prefer. That's one of the things I don't like about U.S. trains, you don't get a choice. Of course if the train is full you might not have a choice about whether to sit on the aisle or near the window, either, but that's beside the point. Since ultimately it is a matter of personal preference, I am surprised that U.S. trains do not take that into consideration. I would gladly sit backwards on planes if such seats were available, but I understand that for space reason that is unlikely to happen. Ed Biagioni decvax!mcnc!unc!biagioni seismo!mcnc!unc!biagioni
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/16/86)
> Only one teeny little detail wrong here. Parasitic drag increases by > the square of the velocity but induced drag DECREASES with an increase > in velocity. Egad! How could I have messed that up? Blame it on after-effects of hypoxia; I had been up to 5500' without O2 the previous weekend :-) -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
mikef@aplvax.UUCP (Michael A. Fallavollita) (01/17/86)
> [article refering to "all-lifting-surface" aircraft.]
I'd like to add a little light to the subject of drag vs. speed. All aero-
dynamic forces are usually thought of in terms of coefficients. The aero-
dynamic forces all vary as the square of the velocity, ie. dynamic pressure.
There are three major components to the total drag coefficient:
Component: Based on:
profile - design
induced - square of lift coefficient, aspect ratio and wing shape
wave - becomes a LARGE factor at supersonic speeds.
Profile drag varys by design only. . Wave drag is caused by
changes in entropy across the shock wave. It does not exist below Mach 1
but increases drastically at Mach 5 and above. The induced drag coefficient is
the hardest to get a handle on but it changes by the square of the lift co-
efficient and by the inverse of the aspect ratio. It does not change as a
factor of speed. Therefore up until Mach 1, the velocity drag curve is
a power curve. Past Mach 1 up until Mach 5, things are within reason
but a lot harder to define. At hypersonic velocities, above Mach 5, wave
drag takes off. A lot of research is presently being done to:
1) find a way to decrease the effects of the shock waves,
2) Create an engine to go from subsonic to hypersonic speeds. (SCRAM)
Drag is always one of the major concerns of Aerospace engineers and one place
of ongoing research.
I hope someone out there followed this and cared a hoot.
(If it did thank Dr. JD Anderson, my Aerodynamics teacher.)
Mike Fallavollita
JHU APL
(UMCP)msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (01/18/86)
I'll try to keep this brief, since I'm including two non-railway groups. Further followups should go to net.railroad (or ARPA railroad list) only. In article <1029@lsuc.UUCP> I (Mark Brader (msb@lsuc.UUCP) wrote: > > [I don't like the idea of flying in backwards seats.] > > (I'm not speaking hypothetically; I have traveled backwards, though not by > > air. In Britain, and I think Europe generally, half the seats on trains > > face backwards, and if the train is busy there may be no choice. For that > > matter, similar conditions apply on the Toronto subway.) Edoardo Biagioni (biagioni@unc.UUCP) replied: > I have traveled backwards too, and do so whenever I get a chance. European > trains do offer the option of sitting with your back to the engine, if you > prefer. That's one of the things I don't like about U.S. trains, you don't > get a choice. ... > I am surprised that U.S. trains do not [consider personal preference]. I'm surprised to hear this about U.S. trains, because the great majority of coach seating on Canadian trains is reversible. The reason is not mainly consideration for passenger preference but eliminating any need to reverse the whole coach to make all the seats face forward, the way almost all people (here) like it. (I suspect that the origin of this difference between Europeans and North Americans is the (even) greater prevalence of cars here than there, by the way...) However, most Canadian trains are about 30 years old, and (shocking confession for net.railroad) I haven't yet tried the newer LRC's. I know Amtrak has replaced a lot of its older equipment, but I've generally only used Amtrak for sleeping-car-length trips lately. So how sure are you about the nonreversibility of seating in U.S. trains? Of course, reversible seats would not be practical in airplanes. Not any design I've ever seen, anyway. It has to be one way or the other. And I stand, or sit, by forward. Mark Brader
jis1@mtgzz.UUCP (j.mukerji) (01/20/86)
> That's one of the things I don't like about U.S. trains, you don't > get a choice. Of course if the train is full you might not have a choice > about whether to sit on the aisle or near the window, either, but that's > beside the point. Since ultimately it is a matter of personal preference, > I am surprised that U.S. trains do not take that into consideration. > I would gladly sit backwards on planes if such seats were available, > but I understand that for space reason that is unlikely to happen. Seats in the Amfleet II and Superliner coaches are reversible, but it is severely discouraged by the train crew!!! However, if you stick to your guns they usually let you do it and treat you like an oddity from Mars. Jishnu.
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/20/86)
> Egad! How could I have messed that up? Blame it on after-effects of > hypoxia; I had been up to 5500' without O2 the previous weekend :-) Flatland pilots, gad. Field Elevation where I flew out of was 6012 feet.
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (01/22/86)
> In article <1029@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: > >That may be, but nobody has tried backwards seats on airliners hereabouts; > >the safety improvements tend to be independent of passenger comfort matters. > >Mark Brader > > I have traveled backwards too, and do so whenever I get a chance. European > trains do offer the option of sitting with your back to the engine, if you > prefer. > Ed Biagioni I have ridden backwards on the local BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) electric trains, and I find it makes me slightly dizzy and slightly nauseous (sp?). I don't know whether it would affect me the same way on an airplane. What I would like to know is: How much safer is it to fly seated backwards? to ride a train seated backwards? Compared to using four or five point seat harnesses riding forwards? How many lives would it save? compared to how many people fly? And is the dizziness, nausea general or is it just me? -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
jim@sivax.UUCP (Jim Boman) (01/23/86)
> > Egad! How could I have messed that up? Blame it on after-effects of > > hypoxia; I had been up to 5500' without O2 the previous weekend :-) > > Flatland pilots, gad. Field Elevation where I flew out of was 6012 feet. >>> Why not remove the wings and engines off of passenger planes? >>> Won't get far, but the only chance of hurting yourself is falling >>> of the ramp. HeeHeeHeee