
Airbus Patents Detachable Cabins to Cut Plane Boarding Times - prostoalex
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/airbus-patents-detachable-cabins-to-cut-plane-boarding-times/
======
gvb
Good luck pressurizing the cabin module without making it excessively heavy.
The flat bottom is going to be tough and the sharp corners where the flat
bottom meets the sides are going to be really tough.

It would be a _lot_ easier to do a "tube in a tube" concept using a swing up
nose like what is already available on the 747 (could be available for the
A380).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cargolux_B747-400F.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cargolux_B747-400F.jpg)
Then use cameras and video screens to simulate windows.

References:

* Boeing 747 "Large Cargo Freighter" aka Dreamlifter [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter) / [http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason3/747_lcf/](http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason3/747_lcf/)

* Airbus Beluga [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga)

------
rsynnott
Given how good your average airline is at directing baggage, I look forward to
being accidentally put on a plane to Murmansk due to a misread barcode or
something on the modular cabin.

~~~
FelixP
In Soviet Russia, Cabin boards You!

------
Jemaclus
If I recall correctly, the slow part about boarding a plane isn't actually the
boarding part. That only takes like 15 minutes. The unloading/loading of
luggage, refueling, and restocking is what takes the most time. If you took
the Mythbusters solution and boarded everyone as quickly and efficiently as
possible, you would still be waiting around on the tarmac for another 15+
minutes for the plane to be ready for take-off. In fact, I believe that's why
they _don 't_ use the most optimal board algorithm, because while you're
attempting to board the plain, you think that other passengers are the problem
and not the airline. (citation needed)

So I'm not _super_ clear on what, exactly, this solves in that regard. If
there were modular fuel tanks and some sort of cannon that shot your luggage
from check-in directly into the luggage compartment, maybe... :)

~~~
jakub_g
I was always thinking, if they let people in only via front doors, why they
don't let the passengers from the back enter first. If people enter randomly,
the ones in the front are blocking everyone else while they're putting their
luggage in overhead lockers etc.

Maybe this is because of what you wrote :)

~~~
Jemaclus
It turns out that the back-to-front is what they actually do now. I believe
the most efficient method, as determined by the Mythbusters, is the WILMA
(Window-Middle-Aisle) technique. Here's the video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss1S3-Kv6R8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss1S3-Kv6R8)

~~~
nradov
The problem with WilMA is that by the time they get to "A" all of the overhead
bins are completely full. So those of us who prefer aisle seats end up being
forced to gate check our carry-on bag.

~~~
Jemaclus
As an aisle-preferrer, I sympathize and agree!

------
Sanddancer
Wouldn't the XC-120 count as prior art here?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_XC-120_Packplane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_XC-120_Packplane)
Seems like a very similar idea

------
11thEarlOfMar
I have a great, patent-able idea to cut turn-around time: It's called 'Fuel-
Along'. Re-fuel as the plane taxis down the runway. Think of it as 'just in
time juicing'. The tanker physically attaches to the aircraft, which tows it
along as it taxis and pumps. I mean, we've all waited and waited while the
line of planes inches along, right? And they can re-fuel mid-air already, so
connect and disconnect should be solved aready. Would cut at least 20 minutes
off the turn around, right? /s

------
ChuckMcM
This was totally my idea :-) Actually mine was a bit different, in mine you
loaded into a "cabin pod" with seats and LCD screens for "windows" and then
the whole pod gets loaded into the back of a C-130 transport to fly you to
your next destination. For safety the pods could have integrated parachutes so
in the event of a flight issue they could be ejected and recovered with the
people on board safe. Ah well.

------
Shivetya
doesn't look remotely reasonable. granted I am no aircraft designer but air
frame integrity, aerodynamics, and extra weight to facilitate the detachable
parts, all look to doom it.

Look to improving movement of planes at airports, unobtrusive but thorough
scanning of flyers and crews; both ground and airborne, and more automation.
(didn't they have a cool concept in the Running Man?

------
pif
I see the advantage for the airline, but I can't find any improvement from the
traveler point of view. How does the detachable cabin reduce the time between
approaching the check-in desk at the depart airport and collecting your
baggage at destination?

------
transfire
This was invented in the 80s. I read about it in Popular Science. The purpose
of the detachable cabin at that time was to allow the cabin (with its
passengers) to parachute to safety in case of an eminent crash. Why planes do
not have whole plane parachutes to this day is disturbing enough, but now they
come along to re-patient what is essentially the same idea, but instead to
save small bit of money by loading the cattle faster is pretty disgusting.

~~~
seanherron
In what modern situation would a whole plane parachute actually help save
lives? The vast majority of the (extremely rare) commercial aircraft disasters
occur during takeoff or landing, when a parachute would provide little utility
due to the distance the aircraft is from the ground. Other notable recent
disasters had either instantaneous destruction of the aircraft (Metrojet 9268,
Malaysian 17) or were caused by pilot error or murder/suicide (Germanwings
9525, Colgan 2407).

Perhaps the only incident I can think of where a parachute may have helped was
US Airways 1549, where a bird strike caused loss of power to both engines. In
that case, however, sufficient safety controls existed to enable landing on
the Hudson river, and the aircraft functioned as designed (engines broke off
when hitting water, the aircraft floated long enough to ensure safe evacuation
of all passengers, life rafts deployed, etc). I would argue a parachute would
probably have resulted in loss of life as a giant A320 parachute falling
uncontrolled on to New York City would probably kill people crashing in to a
building.

Rather than focus on superfluous, impractical safety measures, commercial
aircraft designers have instead spent time on things that actually save lives,
such as Traffic Avoidance and Ground Proximity warning systems.

Note that parachutes do exist for smaller planes, where the risks and benefits
are substantially different. A good example is the Cirrus SR-22. It seems that
most cases of deploying the parachute on the Cirrus is due to pilots running
out of fuel, a failure which is extremely improbable in commercial aviation.

~~~
tzs
> Perhaps the only incident I can think of where a parachute may have helped
> was US Airways 1549 [...]

Another is United 232, the Sioux City crash during a landing where all
hydraulics had been lost, leaving the pilots with only differential thrust to
steer with.

Perhaps TWA 800, if I'm recalling correctly that the explosion basically
decapitated the plane leaving the passenger section largely intact.

Also maybe Aloha 243. That plane was able to land after a large chunk of the
cabin blew out with no fatalities other than a crew member who was sucked out
during the initial blow out, so like USAir 1549 a parachute would not have
saved any lives in that _particular_ incident. In that _type_ of incident,
though, it probably would have been a good option. Such incidents leave the
pilots with a plane that is flying at the moment, but that has severe
structural damage leaving them with no idea what maneuvers they can do without
tearing it apart and no idea if it is even going to hold together in stable
level flight. That would probably be an incident where your probabilities
would be better with popping the 'chute.

~~~
seanherron
Those all happened at least 20 years ago - I was looking at things that have
happened in recent history.

------
tajen
Patents last for 20 years. Aren't they supposed to heavily invest so they get
the max value out of it?

------
BetaCygni
Well, that's something we've all invented before. Why does it warrant a
patent?

~~~
pc86
"Thinking of" != "invented"

