Why no parachutes?
 

I have wondered about this today. Why weren't parachutes a part of the WTC emergency plan?

It would seem that when both elevators and stairs were out of the picture the remaining options would be:
1) Get rescued by a helicopter
2) Jump.

I know that basejumping is dangerous but I just think a signifact number of people could have been saved if they had had a great stock of parachutes up there - certainly the people who did jump would have had better chances with a parachute.

Edit- Oops, just realized I posted this in Community and not in OMNI. Sorry about that - please move it there esxj.



[This message has been edited by Goldlust (edited 09-16-2001).]

Now there is an interesting idea! First time I have heard that one!

Imagine being a base jumper during all this...sitting at your desk 80 floors up without your chute!

Any base jumpers on FT? Gonna put an extra chute under your desk?

Dorian

Imagine 200 people all jumping at the same time, people jumping when they just smell a little smoke, people fighting over a parachute in a busy meeting room...

The easy solution: lower buildings, better exits, no more 100+ buildings, whether it was a plane or a fire in the middle, the higher it gets the lower the chance of escaping.

I got wondering if Radler (Conrad Blacks biz partner) and Donald Trump are still considering building that monstrous tower in Chicago (old news link) any more.

I think it was supposed to be the tallest office building in the world? I bet they are hesitating now!

Dorian

I'm not an expert on parachuting, so I can't comment on how well that would work in a downtown, urban area during an emergency with inexperienced parachuters.

But, I have worked in plenty of office buildings. No modern buildings have windows that open. So, if there were a major fire, people would have to get all suited up in their parachute gear, then try to find a way to break windows which are nearly impossible to break. Obviously in this case there were a lot of people who were forced to jump, but aside from an airplane crashing into your building, you wouldn't have the ability to get outside.

d

Apparently the same question was posed by Maria Bartiromo, but she is being branded as "dumb" in the AA forum.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum71/HTML/005601.html

The design of high rise buildings factor into them escape possibilities for fire. Primarily the materials inhibit burning from normal sources, so there is plenty of time for occupants to move either up or down for escape. Similarly with designs in earth quake zones, where appropriate reinforcement strengthening is provided. However, no architect or engineer can design a fail safe structure that will survive what we saw on Tuesday. A normal collision with a large aircraft, yes. But one with a full load of fuel intended to burn and melt down the structural core. Forget it.

I suppose there is nothing stopping an employee working on the upper floors of such buildings from buying their own parachute. Breaking a window to get out is another matter, but likely could be done.

However, what people living in major metropolitan western cities should be doing is buying gas masks, as the Israelis have been doing since the Gulf War. The next attack will be either an airborne biological, or waterborne one. I believe this is far more likely, and far more practical: one at home and one at the office.

Agree that in most cases, stairwells and other emergency exits are the best methods. However, I was wondering: what is a 'normal collision?'

A normal collision would be an unintentional one. Like a gas leak exploding. That's as opposed to a fully fueled 767 meant to be used as a bomb.

A typical modern building, let's say an apartment building, would have a burn time of approximately 2 hours between apartments and 4 hours on opposite sides of the firewalls. This is plenty of time to get out, and actually, the evacuation procedure in the situation of a "normal" fire wouldn't call for an immediate evacuation of people 2 floors below the fire.

d

I don't think that 99.9% of the people would jump at the scent of smoke. I think they would have to have flames lapping at their feet before they would even consider jumping.

I think it's a great idea. I have jumped from a plane before but I wouldn't consider jumping from a building unless I had no other choice.

I always thought a corkscrew shaped slide would be interesting.

Here is my kooky idea:

What about permanant zip lines attached at floors divisable by 10 to buildings and structures in the general area? They could set it up so there is no more than a 25 degree angle on them. Then, stock 300 or so harnesss on each floor of the building. Then, people could simple step into their harnesses and "slide" down the zip lines to nearby buildings...


My friend at work thought about making some sort of inflatable emergency slide. I told him the slides would melt on the upper floors from the fires, and I don't think you could "slide" down 100 stories...

Actually that is quite an idea! Would probably be even safer than the base jumbing with parachutes but the main problem for your idea is if the lower part of the building (as was the case with the WTC) is in so much devastation that sliding by it would be risky.

PG: It seems Maria is a news media person? Well, Goldlust is honored to have thought of the same as she did, and I certainly fail to see how the AA people can call it dumb. Certainly a life saver!

Maria is a TV reporter. Yes, any life saving idea is certainly not dumb.

I have seen it practiced in "Entrapment". Catherine Zeta Jones jumped from the top of that Malaysia tower with a parashute.

Jackie Chan apparently did not need such help. He walked "down" thru the window of a building in one of his movies.