What is stopping airline companies adopting this technology?

Huge amounts of added weight and cost

>>105581634 (OP)
>Captain, the wings are stalling what do we do? Try to regain engine power? Dump fuel? Loose weight?
>No, I got an idea. Let's rip off the wings.
>Wha-
>The wings cannot stall if they are not there can they?
>N...no but that's not...
>Drop the wings off First Officer!!! That's a bloody benchod order!

>>105581634 (OP)
Why not save the entire plane the same way? Just add a 3rd parachute.

Protip: The vast majority airline accidents happen in circumstances where there wouldn't be time to safely decelerate the passenger compartment. Even if an accident happens high up in the air, without the stabilizers the passenger compartment would tumble and prevent the parachutes from opening.

>>105581634 (OP)
A variety of reasons.
Weight is a big one. It's not just the weight of the parachutes, it's also the added weight needed to the whole structure to support such a function and all the failsafes to make sure this doesn't activate in the middle of a dangerous situation like landing or take off
There's also regulations. Such radical changes need to pass through entire books of regulations written with the blood of 100 years worth of aviation accidents. Even without taking the weight into account, the cost for certification would be prohibitively expensive and require decades of development and certification, unless you want to follow on the footsteps of the former Oceangate CEO and ignore all regulations and die within your own vehicle.
Also this >>105581805. Even if we didn't take weight and certification, it wouldn't work, it wouldn't help. e.g. it wouldn't have saved Air India's recent ~200 fatalities accident.

antisemitism

>>105581634 (OP)
flying should be a gamble. you take your chances.

>>105581685
>the wings are stalling

>>105581634 (OP)
survivors sue more actively

How would this help them crashing inconvenient planes, with no survivors?

in no prticular order: weight; cost; testing required; certification; structural issues; size of the parachutes required; fact, that most commercial aviation disasters happen during takeoff and landing; strong possibility of it catching on fire upon touching down; risk of it actually hindering the safety of the aircraft during normal operation; engineering challenges connected to, among other, wiring, ventilaton, pressurization, hydraulics, fuel lines; the fact, that we don't live in a dahir inshaad world
dunno

>>105581634 (OP)
Is this some dahir Insaat bullshit?

airships don't have this problem

>>105582437
>Air flows over the wing surface, generating a lift due to asymmetric flow which induces a low pressure zone above the wing literally pulling the plane upwards
>Wings stall when the wing cannot generate lift anymore due to air flow separating from the surface or it it stops flowing over the surface in any other way

>>105581634 (OP)

>>105583378
This, we need to go back to blimps.

>>105581634 (OP)
most accidents happen during takeoff or landing in which this shit would not work at all