this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
570 points (98.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

11540 readers
1916 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 79 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I know this design was for safety, with a shit ton of parachutes on the passenger cabin, but modularity generally fucks the economics of a plane design. You have to have a self-contained module, a plane that is flyable (and landable) without it, and you need a way to securely connect one to the other. Things get chunky real quick, and chunky is expensive, and modern passengers are basically "walking mozzarella sticks who think that $300 and a photo I.D. gives them the right to fly through the air like one of the guardian owls of legend. (!30rock@dubvee.org) For cargo planes, a lot of older designs would drop capacity by 20-30%.

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What does it achieve in the first place, ditching all the flying parts of the aircraft I mean. Like in what scenario does that help

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

The mechanical failure category of crashes happen when the flying parts of a plane become less good at flying than they used to be.

Things like rudder hardovers, hydraulic failure, uncontrolled engine fire, engine detachment and similar are all things which can make the plane unflyable, and if flying isn't possible anymore then all the previously useful fly-parts become huge and unpredictable liabilities that get in the way and make your problem worse - the forces that once kept you in the air now spiralling your plane out of control.

I'm not saying this crazy idea is a good one, but the theory is that you can just throw away all the problem parts and become a dumb capsule, which in that scenario would be desirable because it returns things to a predictable state.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

The mechanical failure category of crashes happen when the flying parts of a plane become less good at flying than they used to be.

I don't care what anyone else says, this is fucking poetry.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Nothing quite so predictable as an uncontrolled plane collising with your dumb capsule

Why not just put a big plane size parachute on the whole plane?

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Less good is better than missing entirely...

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In theory, if something goes catastrophically wrong, it's going to be with the "flying parts" of the airplane. Flight controls locked up or ripped off.

In practice, safely jettisoning the passenger compartment would require a degree of flight stability far in excess of that required to land safely.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Without giving it any specific thought, ditching over deep water assuming it has big chutes designed to slow it, you've now got a capsule that'll hit the water at a reduced speed, falls vertically so an asymmetric touchdown won't rip the aircraft apart and a built in life raft to keep the passengers safe until help arrives.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago

As an initial theory, it's solid.

But then we start asking if this is the best way to do it. Are there alternative ways of achieving the same - or better - safety margins? Could we reduce the risk of deep-water ditching by avoiding flight over deepwater? Could we restrict the distance from shore that aircraft are allowed to fly? Could we require additional redundancy (third, fourth engines, larger fuel reserves) for aircraft flying beyond glide distance to land? (We do both of these. Single engine planes require passengers and crew to be prepared to ditch before leaving glide range to land. Twin engine planes are restricted by ETOPS. Both are strictly limited on how far they can fly from shore.)

Adding a third engine and 30 additional minutes of reserve fuel would achieve at least the same degree of safety against ditching, and vastly improve safety in all sorts of situation where a detachable cabin would not be beneficial. Do we improve a wide variety of safety measures, or do we have a reason to focus on this one particular type of incident?

[–] Brummbaer@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

modern passengers are basically "walking mozzarella sticks who think that $300 and a photo I.D. gives them the right to fly through the air like one of the guardian owls of legend.

What does that mean? Do you want only Pilots with 5k flying hours minimum on a plane that have a military survival training?

Public transportation needs to be boring, and for some reason airplanes are not there yet it seems.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don't think airplanes ever will be there. It's just too expensive to fly a plane, there's too much risk, it's never going to be boring to the level of a bus or train.

It could definitely be way closer than it is, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] perspectiveshifting@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 month ago (4 children)

If you're going to jettison 90% of the plane to let it fall with parachutes, why not avoid all the complications of modularity and instead just have a parachute system that could let the entire plane float down? Or if the wings are the issue with floating down via parachute, just ditch those? Surely better than letting the pilots go down with the failing plane.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Wings are strong as fuck. You don't want them detachable.

As for why not parachute the whole thing: The wings are also where the fuel is, which can weigh a ton. And the engines weigh a ton. Much easier to design a parachute when you jettison those.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Not just a ton, and I'm only chiming in here because the numbers are staggering. In the case of e.g. a 747 it's something like 190 tons. 63,000 some odd gallons of fuel.

The fuel is also flammable, and the engines work by at the end of the day being on fire in a controlled manner. Having the fuel and engines hit the ground elsewhere from the occupants sounds like a good plan to me if you can manage a way to do it somehow.

[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would think the pilots move to the back and initiate detachment from there.

[–] mech@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In which kind of emergencies would the pilots have enough controlled flight time to do that, while still being 100% sure the plane will crash?

[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, good point.

[–] fishy@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd guess the issue is fire. Probably the only situation where this would be necessary.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But like half of airline fires have been caused by things in the cargo hold.

The cargo hold is typically under the passenger compartment.

So in reality, there’s a 50ish percent chance that the pilots are just saving their own life.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

WE GOTTA DROP THE LOAD!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Whole airframe parachutes are a thing on small aircraft, and I'm certain this would be easier to do than a detachable cabin.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Whereupon, it deploys parachutes and drops to the ground... or ocean, or mountain top, or into the arctic circle. But, I'm sure it would be fine.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Or a cannibal island full of mutants.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or a mutant island full of cannibals.

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or an uninhabited island that becomes full of cannibals.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Or a mutant cannibal full of islands.

[–] NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

If they’re all mutants they’d think I’m the one that looks messed up, so they’d avoid eating me like I was Blinky the fish

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It might fall through a wormhole, and leap forward in time thousands of years, where Roddy McDowall clones dress up as apes and terrorize the populace. I mean nothing in physics disallows this, as far as I know.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago

Or fall out of sync with time itself, where they have to discover a way back to the present before the supernatural creatures who consume the timeline behind us eat them alive. This possibility hasn't been definitively disproven, either!

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I've seen the exact same design years ago sold as a way to quickly prepare the plane for takeoff. Passengers would board the detached module so the whole plane doesn't have to sit there waiting. I imagine you would have more passenger modules than engine modules. The more expensive engine modules would fly non-stop: land, drop the passenger module, pick up another module and take off before even the first plane deboarded. No idea if this could actually work. It's just strange to see the exact same design done for a dumber reason.

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you know eventually someone will dump the passengers during the flight

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Boeing is gonna build the emergency jettison system with one sensor prone to misfiring

[–] absentbird@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm a little surprised we don't do it that way. It would make it a lot easier logistically, and it could be much more accessible. Time waiting on the tarmac for humans to shuffle single file is utility wasted.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm sure technically we could build a plane like that but I don't think we're at a developmental level that would allow us to make them cheap and secure enough and to handle the logistics involved. Boeing is struggling to make normal planes safe and the entire flight control system in US is close to a breaking point. Imagine adding more possible failure points to the planes and more complex logistics at the airports...

[–] Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean yes, but those problems are there because we refuse to work together and rather have "competition create progress". If all the aviation firms would agree to share knowledge and adopt common standards and thus work together more than compete, we could have nicer things everywhere.

But people are stupid and selfish so we can't have that, fight is all we can.

And I'm not saying aviation firms specifically are about that, rather all humans everywhere.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

That time is used by the ground crew to prepare the plane for the flight and go over safety systems. Planes can't just land and takeoff again immediately. Things can go wrong, and you can't pull over in the air. Sometimes those delays are mechanical, and some times those delays are shift changes, bad crew scheduling/staffing levels. Airports are pretty fucking efficient over all. From the planes flying people around perspective, not the human shuffling element. We are just cattle to them after all.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 6 points 1 month ago

Pretty sure there was an episode of Thunderbirds that did this back in the 60s

[–] Danarchy@lemmy.nz 15 points 1 month ago

Big red button that says yeet

[–] VeryInterestingTable@jlai.lu 6 points 1 month ago

New fear unlocked.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Isn't this how the kids in Lord of the Flies ended up on the island?

[–] IratePirate@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago

Boeing machines already have this, just without the chutes. 👍

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Let's entertain this concept:

The chute for the passenger compartment (if there is one) would need to deploy before separation, and looking at this design it can not.

As soon as the compartment tips and catches airflow it will just rotate straight down uncontrollably.