I like the use of perspective in that last panel
If you follow avherald.com for any length of time, you’ll learn that 1) the vast majority of aviation incidents are completely benign, and 2) the vast majority of injuries aboard airliners are caused by passengers not wearing their seatbelts. The seatbelts aren’t there for the once-a-decade crash; they’re there for the once-a-month strong turbulence event, which the airplane itself will barely even notice.
And in the rare horrific crash, the seat will not remain attached to the floor anyway.
In one accident the only one who survived was a girl who stayed strapped into her seat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_KoepckeSome theorize that staying strapped in saved her life.
As many as 14 other passengers were later discovered to have survived the initial crash but died while waiting to be rescued.
Jesus, what shit luck for them…
Ehhh. Aircraft seat rails are pretty freaking durable and the way seats attach to them are generally extremely secure. I wouldnt be surprised if the floor ripped away before the seat.
Is he clicking or unclicking it?
I thought he’d be unclicking it by context, but with the hand position it must be clicking it together.
Neither, he’s cucking the seatbelt
Why does it say cuck on his pants though
its keming/kerning L and I to make u
since it’s halloween, i cackled at this…Extra Fabulous!!
Wasn’t this proven wrong on mythbusters too?
Yep - the seatbelt and the crash position are extremely effective at preventing death and lessening injuries
That joke was made by Miguel Gila, a Spaniard comedian, decades ago.
That factoid is from a decade or two ago, when clear air turbulence was a lot rarer. Nowadays, due to global warming, turbulence coming out of nowhere is more common, and on occasion results in unbelted passengers being thrown into the ceiling and severely injured.
Do you have a source for that? I’m skeptical.
Fair enough, seems to be a legitimate enough study.
I’ve also seen reports debunking this correlation. I don’t have a source but it may not be as cut and dry as this.
There have been a few events in recent memory that made international news of passengers injured due to turbulence including someone who I believe died.
I am well aware of these events. I am referring to the point about warmer atmospheres causing more clear air turbulence. I don’t believe there is conclusive evidence of this yet, though it is a logical explanation.
I’m not sure way speculate against founded claims without the slightest research.
I mean, it is good to be empirical about things, but it would fit well into the other evidence we have.
The warmer air means there’s more energy kicking about in the atmosphere and, to my knowledge, we have pretty clear evidence that this causes more extrem weather events to occur. For example, hurricanes are more likely.
We’ll probably see those on the weather radar to avoid them, but at that point it would be weird to me, if the occurrence of lighter winds wasn’t also more likely in places we don’t avoid.I guess, a reduction of turbulence injuries might’ve taken place independently, because our instruments for predicting them are getting better, but then their frequency would’ve still increased.
I agree that it sounds logical. It might even be true, just saying that it’s not conclusive.
I’m not sure way speculate against founded claims without the slightest research.
You asked for something politely, someone gave it to you politely, and you politely conceded the argument.
What is this place?
Better to learn something new than to stay in a hole of ignorance because I can’t accept I’m wrong.
What’s the point of wearing a helmet when skydiving? If your chute doesn’t open, are you supposed to try and land head first so it will protect you? 🤔
So if you crack your head jumping out you are still awake enough to pull the cord, plus if you land hard you don’t smash your head on a rock.
The super high altitude jumpers had altitude devices that would automatically deploy their chutes in the event that their air supplies failed and they passed out.
Stupid question here, I guess, but why isn’t there a system to potentially deliver commercial passengers and crew to the ground in case of a crash? Military jets have election seats and parachutes, so why don’t we have at least something required for commercial aircraft in the same vein?
Is it the money that it would undoubtedly require?
deleted by creator
Into the middle of the Atlantic ocean
Parachuting isn’t as easy as pulling a wire and gently floating to the ground. Those who parachute professionally take hundreds of hours of training. If you’re brand new, you’re required to stop yourself to a professional.
Not a stupid question.
Between the training required for a solo parachute jump, and the cost (and more importantly) weight of the equipment, plus the relative safety of commercial flights, it’s simply not justified.
In more than a few cases we’ve seen airliners make emergency landings that are gnarly, but the majority survive. In more cases than I can count, there’s checks and balances that ground flights because of safety concerns either at the departure point or at the destination (icing, high winds, etc), or due to mechanical concerns.
It’s rare that a fully inspected and functional aeroplane will fall out of the sky, and we do everything in our power to ensure that all planes that leave the ground are fully inspected and functional. Short of a freak occurrence, like a fast forming weather phenomenon, there’s so many checks and balances that airliner crashes are exceedingly rare.
So not only is a crash rare, there’s no guarantee that a crash will be fatal, usually the pilot can at least get the plane on the ground without killing everyone aboard, and the fact that it’s a massive amount of extra weight that requires training that the average person doesn’t have, there’s little point and nearly nothing to gain from doing something like that, while it would have significant downsides on flight efficiency and increase the costs of fuel per flight due to the extra weight.
Then there’s the consideration of, even if they were able to successfully parachute to the ground, what then? It’s pretty much a guarantee that nobody has a radio, and that you’re far enough away from civilization that your cellphone doesn’t work, so now you have hundreds of people spread out over potentially thousands of miles of terrain/water/whatever that you now need weeks to search and rescue everyone. Taking weeks on search and rescue, pretty much guarantees that you’ll find people who landed safely, then died from exposure to the environment.
On the flip side, if everyone is in the plane when it crashes then all you need to do is find the plane; everyone will be in that general area, whether alive or dead.
There’s just too many downsides to having parachutes on board to make it feasible.
Damn. That was thorough.
Thanks. I think a lot.
Probably too much
Like a parachute on an airline
Honestly, I do understand that ejector seats are not a good idea, but I was thinking something more like this. It’s more like a lifeboat and would be equipped as such to address the same sort of concerns a disaster at sea would require to allow folks to survive and be tracked.
I get that the expense and weight appear prohibitive, but it’s insane to me that we put people 30,000 feet in the air with no plan other than prevention and measures that don’t completely address all dangers.
I know nothing will likely ever be done in this vein, and probably rightfully so, but it sure feels like airlines are the ultimate “you pays your money and you takes your chance” experience. Given my own limited experience with flying, it increasingly scares the hell out of me personally. I didn’t have occasion to fly until I was in late middle age, and I found the experience thoroughly terrifying.
That’s a very normal reaction. You’re putting your life in the hands of technicians and engineers, to build, maintain and service the aircraft so it functions, qualified inspectors to certify that the plane is safe to fly, and pilots to fly the aircraft, and you, safely to your destination. Pretty much everyone you’re putting your life in the hands of, you’ve never met, never will, and it’s unlikely you’ll even know their names.
It’s a lot of trust to put into people you don’t even know, to keep you alive in your chair in the sky.
If that reality doesn’t at least give you pause, or some concern, then I’d be worried there’s something seriously wrong with you.
Rest assured that statistics are on your side. It’s far more likely for you to get to your destination without any significant complications then it is for any complications to happen, including any that might lead to a crash or a fatality. Statistically, it’s comfortably one of the safest, if not the safest, method of travel.
There’s nothing wrong with having some apprehension, fear, or worry, over placing your life in the hands of complete strangers; despite how qualified each and every one of them might be, they’re still strangers.
All I can say is, if you’re bothered by it, learn how to parachute solo. It’ll take a while, but learn it. Then just pack your own parachute any time you fly. Problem solved. If you lose confidence in the pilots to keep you alive, bail.
You gonna bail me out when I get arrested for trying to open the door mid-flight? 😂
Seriously, though, all you guys here are right about everything you’ve said. I’ll undoubtedly be forced to fly again, and I’ll remind myself of these things when I do.
Of course, if I’m on the one flight that does disintegrate in midair, well…my last thoughts of y’all might not be terribly charitable. 😉
Throwing untrained people out of a commercial airliner at high speed in the middle of a emergency is a good way to ensure no one survives. The equipment would add a significant amount of space, fuel and maintenance burden too, and require major compromises to the aircraft design itself. All to resolve a problem that effectively never happens.
Some valid answers are already given by other commentators. Just want to highlight that commercial airlines are operating barely cost positive. Every extra bit of cost added has to be at least covered by some other stream of revenue. How much more money can a seat in these crammed airliners make to cover the cost of R&Ding and maintaining additional safety measures?
Commercial airlines make a fuckton of money, but not in economy passenger travel. Cargo and elite passengers make the money.
That’s revenue, their profit was closer to $4.6bn which, whilst a big number, is a margin of under 8%.
An explosive release canopy for an ejection seat system on an airliner would just release the entire top half of the plane, and don’t forget that fighter pilots are both wearing flightsuits and get specific training for the event.
Even beyond the material and engineering costs it’s a difficult ask, probably better to just focus on reliability in the first place.
Ok but what about instead of an explosive release canopy, the crew just sorta loosen some of the bolts holding the top of the plane on, then the pilot flies upside-down to gently tip everyone out of their seats
“You’ll find lifejackets and parachutes under your seat. In case of an emergency, hold on to your butts.”
Sounds perfect, no notes.
I remember seeing an article back in the 90s or maybe even 80s that was exploring the possibility of the entire passenger compartment separating from the wings and rest of the fuselage and parachuting down in the event of a major failure. The thing is, it would be ridiculously expensive to implement, and there are very few situations where such a system would be any better than keeping the plane in one piece.
Iirc, when experimented on, these ‘escape pods’ would enter a spin so violent it would turn the whole thing into a lethal centrifuge.
Yeah, escape pods have been implemented in some aircraft in the past, but the idea has always ended without wide scale adoption for the reasons so many have stated here.
So it doesn’t matter on Southwest?
During the cattle call, we’re all just cattle…
There’s always a first…
Do they think your odds get better if you’re get thrown down a metal tube on impact?
God these comics are absolute trash, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an EFC that didn’t have an offensive art style and horribly mediocre punchline.
It’s part of the appeal
What’s the appeal?
I think the general absurdity of it, plus you’re never quite sure where they’re gonna go.
For example:
It’s absurd in such a predictable way though, when every joke is le wacky literalism or I-want-to-die, it becomes rote.
Like, okay, there’s the cum betweener, he cums between people. That sure is the opposite of what they said would happen in the first panel. Please clap.
How… How do you think most jokes work?
Not every joke has a lazy setup.
Most do though
Why does the seatbelt make a “cuck” sound?
Keming.
C L I C K
C LI C K
In the event of catastrophic damage leading to explosive decompression it should keep you from being sucked out into thin air. Like if the roof tears off like that one time. Or that Boeing thing. Or that other Boeing thing. Or that other other Boeing thing.
The roof tearing off was a Boeing. an Aloha Airlines 737.
Of course it was, how could I forget.
Hope you’re also wearing a parka.
Or keep you from bouncing and hitting the ceiling in cases of extreme turbulence. Or yo help on cases of lower-speed crashes (cases where the plane goes into some nosedive are less likely), etc.
