NYC balks at skyscraper escape pods

It's been almost four-and-a-half years since the tragedy of September 11th, and yet the city whose two greatest structures were toppled has done very little to address safety in existing skyscrapers, and has even denied building permits to an Israeli company looking to test their innovative escape pod system in Manhattan. Escape Rescue Systems, spurred by the ineffective building evacuation methods as demonstrated on 9/11, invented an apparatus wherein a roof-mounted crane lowers five collapsed pods down one face of the structure to await the arrival of emergency personnel. Once firefighters arrive on scene, the stacked pods are expanded one-by-one and climb back up the side of the building, rescuers in tow, to pick up folks evaculating through windows in 150-person waves (5 pods x 30 people/pod- for a video demo, follow the "Read" link). Even after successful trial runs in Tel Aviv, NYC's Office of Emergency Management claimed that the system has too many faults--possible confusion by rescuers and chaos by evacuees, spreading fire due to open windows, and risk to pod passengers of being burned on descent--to warrant a permit. Company CEO Jonathan Shimshoni admits that the city's concerns have merit, but argues that the only way to address them and make some progress on this largely-ignored problem is to initiate a pilot program and work out the kinks from there.

[Via CNN]

[chris @ Feb 24th 2006 8:49AM]

Being burned on descent is BETTER than being DEAD on descent. Take your pick.

[distantbody @ Feb 24th 2006 8:55AM]

Murphy's Law is obviously not on this things side, simply too many things could go wrong.

[hiredgoons @ Feb 24th 2006 9:10AM]

Yeah, better to let them burn to death stuck inside the building, you know, the old-fashioned way...

[Loker @ Feb 24th 2006 9:12AM]

who cares if Murphy's law is against it....it is a step in the right direction....I think they could at least give them a permit to run a trial and fix a lot of the problems that could arise.....

[Samuel McConnell @ Feb 24th 2006 9:26AM]

All people in buildings more than, say, 10 stories tall, need jetpacks for escape. It's really that simple. Jetpacks have been around since, like, the 1800s!

[Mike @ Feb 24th 2006 9:33AM]

Who needs a pod when you can have your own 'chute?
http://www.executivechute.com/products.html

[Mike @ Feb 24th 2006 9:44AM]

While this is certainly some neat stuff. I wonder if it's really any better than the good old staircase. They talk about the high throughput, but it doesn't even start moving people until the fire department arrives, and they don't really go into how long the whole loading, unloading, and transport process takes.

It's true that a staircase can be disabled by fire, smoke, or debris, but this probably can be too, and most large buildings have multiple stairways for just that reason.

[Jared Winter @ Feb 24th 2006 9:53AM]

Yeah, jetpacks sound like a really "simple" solution.

[Lord Talus @ Feb 24th 2006 10:12AM]

This works as long as the roof has not been compromised. I should probably RTFA, but have they done any simulations based on the 9/11 towers and reached an estimate of how many lives could have been saved?

[David Veksler @ Feb 24th 2006 10:14AM]

I don�t know if this idea is brilliant or crazy, but does anyone else find it disturbing that bureaucrats are stifling potentially life-saving innovations? What other inventions will we never know about that might have saved lives on 9/11?

[Ashley Jones @ Feb 24th 2006 10:17AM]

Still like this idea

http://www.executivechute.com/

[Pacey @ Feb 24th 2006 10:20AM]

"...does anyone else find it disturbing that bureaucrats are stifling potentially life-saving innovations?"

That's probably the best point to bring out of all of this.

[Elias @ Feb 24th 2006 10:25AM]

Pretty interesting, especially how the fold-out staircase has a built-in wheelchair ramp.

-- Elias

[Scott @ Feb 24th 2006 10:28AM]

When I heard escape pods the first thing I imagined where these little capsules that would be jettisoned from the side of the building. Kinda like when an Imperial star ship is about to blow up. Now that would be a helluva ride!

[Ted @ Feb 24th 2006 10:59AM]

How about a pod with the inflatable airbags that protected the mars rovers on landing (also used in the movie Red Planet). Of course its not terribly safe for gawkers down on the street. Take a look at:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/tl_entry1.html

[Evan @ Feb 24th 2006 11:07AM]

That's the most ridiculous solution I have ever seen when it's played out. There's a fire, or a bomb, or something horrible is happening. Got to get out fast! Solution: wait for the compacted pods slowly descend to the bottom of the building. Wait for the fire department to show up to deploy the pods back up the building. Note that a crew of fire fighters must operate and be send up with the pods, instead of fighting a fire. Rise back up to the top levels, letting other levels wait till you get around to them.

Now firedrills are usually judged by how fast people exit the building. Don't you think this seems like a ridiculously time consuming method? Granted people on the top floors are in more danger, but then maybe have an employee operated emergency elevator system always present on the top floors that can be used immediately in case of an emergency.

[LordSludge @ Feb 24th 2006 11:09AM]

I'm all about my glass cutter, rappel gear, and 1000' feet of rope!

[Whiplash @ Feb 24th 2006 11:15AM]

#10, I was thinking the same thing! Honestly, I was a little disappointed to see the real concept. :)

Let's face it though... when you stack thousands of people on top of each other in a tall thin box and somebody rams a jumbo jet into it at 500Mph, there's going to carnage. I've seen the documentaries, and I don't see how this or any other solutions could have saved all of the folks in that building.

[Gordy @ Feb 24th 2006 11:33AM]

What's wrong with parachutes? Hundreds and hundreds of them. Why don't planes have parachutes?

I want a parachute if you're sending me 50+ stories up every day. I need assurances that I have some sort of control in such an event.

Heck, I'll buy my own and sneak it into my desk on a weekend. Hell, then they'll probably think I'm a terrorist and fire me.

[Nick @ Feb 24th 2006 11:44AM]

Wouldn't a parachute just get stuck on the side of the building?

[supes @ Feb 24th 2006 11:52AM]

Forget about low-tech jet packs. Why not use transporters and beam them out? Duh.

[Jack @ Feb 24th 2006 12:09PM]

*Inflammatory comment removed*

[Mike @ Feb 24th 2006 12:21PM]

>> Wouldn't a parachute just get stuck on the side of the building?

If jumping out of a building with a 'chute is my best option, I can assume that I am in seriously deep sh*t and likely willing to take that chance of getting hung up or worse.

[Zex_Suik @ Feb 24th 2006 12:48PM]

I have a few comments on this, mainly some alternative ideas:

1. Catapults and giant slingshots. Fling the people into nearby lakes and rivers.

2. I second the idea of rapel gear and mandatory classes. "On belay!"

3. Jetpacks are so old fashioned. go to gizmag and search for 'first human landing without a parachute'

4. Big 'moonwalks' that inflate fast out of the side of a building. For big buildings have a series on the way down. People can jump out and bounce their way down.

5. Get rid of 2 or more story buildings. Just build nice long flat buildings everywhere. Put trams in so people can get around faster. There! now they don't fall down, the roof just collapses

6. Hang gliders

7. Fast ropes - issue nice thick gloves or those descender thingies

8. Only build tall buildings shaped like pyramids, people can slide down the sides

9. Put swirly slides on the buildings . around and around and around all the way down. Expand the fire dept to include a bio clean up crew for all the pukers at the bottom

10. BALLOONS! that inflate upon need. carry 20 people, they just float away.

11. Zip lines from one building the next. People can zip across to safety.

12. I like the airbag suit idea. Just be sure to jump out BEFORE you inflate the bags.

13. Train giant condors to grab people from windows and fly them down

14. Spider bot suits.

I'll stop now

[Ted @ Feb 24th 2006 1:06PM]

#19, I suppose life preservers capitalize on drowning? Antibiotics capitalize on anthrax? Smoke detectors capitalize on fire? I'm not even going to touch the rest of the crap in your comment.

[Dan @ Feb 24th 2006 1:26PM]

All hands abandon ship, er, I mean building!!

[Hedgie @ Feb 24th 2006 1:35PM]

The best solution is the simplest.

A very long Fire Poll.

It is easy to make.
Dosen't Cost much.
It would be fun to just slide down that thing.
Who needs stairs after that? ^_^;

[vince @ Feb 24th 2006 2:04PM]

Although the pod systems appears to have it's faults, being able to try/demontrate a novel idea will often motivates others into action - to address a need. Cynicism is not constructive nor a solution. I've enjoyed reading the idease here...keep them comming!

[James @ Feb 24th 2006 2:22PM]

So how does the pod climb up the side of the building if it's just had half of it blown up/aircraft destroyed?

[Stiev @ Feb 24th 2006 2:34PM]

For a disaster even, that thing (and the rescue folks) sure are taking their swee time...

[Peter Reynolds @ Feb 24th 2006 4:13PM]

It would be a good if architects,engineers and fire departments could get together to design a universal system for rescue workers to travel up the sides of tall buildings. The system would have to be unobtrusive for asthetic reasons. And window cleaners could use it too.
Until then, My personal solution would be Ropes for the lower floors, and a Reserve Parachute and harness with a static line for the higher floors.

[Jack @ Feb 24th 2006 5:24PM]

Hey TED, Smoke detectors don't cost $500 a piece just so that they'll tell you that your house is already on fire. They DETECT (smoke) and they do it pretty darn well. I'm not going to pour my hard earned tax money on some idiotic experimental product that ASSUMES that a pod is safer than the staircase in the event of a fire when that fire is blazing out the window and the building is collapsing. If anything, people are going to panic and fight over who's going to get on the first pod. Chaos ensues. Good luck with the rest of your naive views.

[Resolution @ Feb 24th 2006 6:07PM]

The only skyscrapers that have ever collapsed because of a fire in modern history were all part of the World Trade Center complex, although it is likely the Sears Tower itself will suffer the same fate sometime in the next two years.

Want to stop people dying inside burning buildings? You can't go better than helicopters & fire escapes combined with decent sprinkler systems inside the building. Such escape pods are friviolous, and will only help save lives in the event someone decides to perform a controlled demolition in a building filled with people aka 9/11.

For more:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

http://www.loosechange911.com/

[NY @ Feb 24th 2006 6:53PM]

Having escaped from the WTC with co-workers during that unforgetable Chaos, ANY technological hope should be developed to its fullest.

But there are two sides to every story, so pehaps their opposing point of views are a result of very careful analyses.

[submachine @ Feb 25th 2006 8:50AM]

"The best solution is the simplest. A very long Fire Poll."

Yeah, its called a "Fire Escape" and they have been built on NYC building exteriors for decades.

[Cuba @ Feb 27th 2006 1:02AM]

Seeing as the only buildings that used the flawed building method used in the construction of the towers are now gone (to my knowledge), what is the point of this?

Any reasonably constructed building will easily withstand a plane crash, and the resulting fuel burn, the FM-200 Fire Suppression System can easily handle any fire situations with minimal impact to the occupants and assets (some electronics may not work after being doused with FM-200).

The WTC collapse was an anomaly.

[Nobuyuki Idei @ Feb 27th 2006 4:46PM]

"...does anyone else find it disturbing that bureaucrats are stifling potentially life-saving innovations?"

Ever heard of the FDA?

[Ellis. @ Mar 23rd 2006 9:39AM]

I think we'll see it yet in the near future. But is it a sign of paranoia...!? I'm not sure, but with the rising popularity (again; the first time was WWII) of gas masks, chem tents, security fences, safe rooms/houses...its hard for me not to start feeling reticent about all these expensive security effects. One wonders if we might have better ways to spend our time and money--and concerns--than in constant worry about every concievable way we could perish.

The WTC was indeed an anomaly. And high rise fires resulting in death are also rare. Yes! we are paranoid after all.