To survive a plane crash - Economy is best

vicwatson

Programme on Channel 4 about it next month

http://www.independent.ie/travel/travel-news/want-to-survive-a-plane-crash-fly-economy-new-research-shows-3233393.html

Mr Benevolent

Forget the program, the crash footage is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKOYKd7kB2s

Bit of an odd 'accident', looks like a standard final approach without bothering to flare. I'd bet a newer aircraft would not have broken up like that. Apparently they fitted an ejection seat for the pilot. Strikes me as a cheap, stupid and bloody dangerous way to do things.

magicbastarder

i heard that the plane was remote controlled from a chase plane?

amen

Economy is best

so on an all economy plane I should be safe any where I sit ?

Or what about a plane with all business (BA A320 to NY). where should I sit?

murphym7

Surely this research is very very flawed. That crash is just one scenario of a crash - surely there are many more variations of how impact can effect an aircraft. Wing first impact, tail first, etc......or am I missing something??

Henry Ford III

Rearmost seating must be the safest. I've never heard of a plane reversing into a mountain

vicwatson

Confab wrote: »

Forget the program, the crash footage is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKOYKd7kB2s

Bit of an odd 'accident', looks like a standard final approach without bothering to flare. I'd bet a newer aircraft would not have broken up like that. Apparently they fitted an ejection seat for the pilot. Strikes me as a cheap, stupid and bloody dangerous way to do things.

Wow, so forget watching the programme over looking at 35 seconds of a youtube video....OKaayyyy:rolleyes:

vicwatson

amen wrote: »

so on an all economy plane I should be safe any where I sit ?

Or what about a plane with all business (BA A320 to NY). where should I sit?

Safest near the rear of the plane in Economy, I just pasted what I copied, jebus all very touchy round here

If it's all business then i wouldn't fly on it y'know:rolleyes:

Tenger

murphym7 wrote: »

Surely this research is very very flawed. That crash is just one scenario of a crash - surely there are many more variations of how impact can effect an aircraft. Wing first impact, tail first, etc......or am I missing something??

I wouldn't say that the research is flawed. Rather the headline grabbing statement describing the result is flawed. yes in this scenario sitting towards the rear is 'safest'. But so many crashes are not like this so the overall research value has to be looked at critically.


@Amen below: You are referring to rearwards facing seats....the documentary is talking about rearmost seats. I believe the RAF Trident troops transports had rear facing seats.

amen

Rearmost seating must be the safest.

Its the safest as in the case of a sudden acceleration (-) or a crash you are thrown into the seat which protects you.

BeardySi

Not to mention that in nearly all crash scenarios it's the nose which would go in first with the front of the aircraft absorbing the greater proportion of the energy of the crash.

Think of business class as a crumple zone

Cork boy 55

I saw a documentary ages ago before, cannot remember the name might have been aircrash investigation and they asked where is safest place to sit and the basic answer is there is no answer there is not enough data.

It depends on plane and type of crash.
A major factor in survival is seating near an exit and listening to flightcrew instructions.

The center of the plane is the strongest structurally but it is also where the fuel is generally so in certain types of crashes it is the most dangerous.


Get a seat near a exit is the only real advice you can give people.
I know a guy in work he always sits at the back of the plane

vicwatson

On tomorrow night at 9pm Channel 4, Channel 4 HD and Channel 4+1. Don't forget:P

Reoil

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Get a seat near a exit is the only real advice you can give people.
I know a guy in work he always sits at the back of the plane

Sitting at the back is what saved the survivors of the crash at Cork last year.
There is no safest place at all - just luck.

pastorbarrett

Yep, as my 'oul lad always says, "you never seen a plane reverse into a mountain now, did ya?" :rolleyes:

amen

Yep, as my 'oul lad always says, "you never seen a plane reverse into a mountain now, did ya?

but planes have stalled and hit the ground rear first

pastorbarrett

amen wrote: »

but planes have stalled and hit the ground rear first

Erm, I'm not following ya. Plus, it was said in jest :rolleyes:

Cork boy 55

Just watched it

great television, visual spectacularly crash


the science part, the results
all a bit pointless really, what was new?
Did they learn anything?

vonbarracuda

Will never sit in 7a again

Cork boy 55

The nose of the plane crumpling as the plane crashes. The pilots all parachuted off the plane before the crash
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/channel-4-plane-crash-documentary-boeing-747_n_1957639.html

vicwatson

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The nose of the plane crumpling as the plane crashes. The pilots all parachuted off the plane before the crash
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/channel-4-plane-crash-documentary-boeing-747_n_1957639.html

Cracked where it did as the front landing gear is not designed to snap. The underwing/fuselage landing gear did as designed and snapped off, almost taking the side of the plane out.

Huffington post think it was a 747 !!!

Sterling Archer

For those who missed it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3R1SDVx8nM&feature=plcp

Tenger

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Just watched it

great television, visual spectacularly crash......
Did they learn anything?

That many thousands of people will tune into a TV show that shows an actual plane crash?

vicwatson wrote: »

Huffington post think it was a 747 !!!

I always get a giggle from the Huffington Post!!

Comhrá

I found the most amazing part of the crash was how the engines continued to run for a while after impact. The jet blast was clearly visible from the engines while the crumpled fuselage sat motionless on the desert. There must have been enough fuel in an intact tank to keep the engines fueled.

Cork boy 55

tippman1 wrote: »

I found the most amazing part of the crash was how the engines continued to run for a while after impact. The jet blast was clearly visible from the engines while the crumpled fuselage sat motionless on the desert. There must have been enough fuel in an intact tank to keep the engines fueled.

Ya that was beautiful sight, the sight of the desert sand been blown away by the engines.

They should make a series out of it , crash all sorts of old planes down in mexico

---

How much did this all cost Channel4?

Anyone got any links to what big players/thinkers in the aviation industry thought about it?

finbarrk

Saw that on C4 the other night. I found it intreguing. Amazing how the front of the aircraft snapped.

Zuiderzee

The tail of a commercial we pulled up from about 1600 metres, think you'ld be buggered regardless of where you sat

Stovepipe

What also go the attention of the researchers was the amount of difficulty the overhead PSU panels and the unrestrained wiring created. The PSUs are the containers that hold the overhead oxygen masks and they should not have fallen down, nor should wiring looms and various plastic panels. As was correctly pointed out, they would have either caused injuries to passengers' heads, causing passengers to be knocked out and be unable to escape themselves or people would have been restrained by the loose wiring looms. The fact that the engines stayed running was a major mistake. they should have rigged a control to the fuel cut-offs. Apart from that, they didn't make any attempt to flare to land, which a real crew would have done instinctively, which mean that the flat, high vertical speed landing that did occur would not have happened.1500 ft/min vertically is too much for the gear to handle and which is why the overhead fittings came down.
i'd give it 6 out of ten.

regards
Stovepipe

A320

Id like to see the way the 727 psu's are secured,ie like a 737 classic maybe,also the overhead wirelooms in those cushion raceways, who's to say they were properly secured,on tv they gave no indication as to what inspections were done beforehand,I've seen 737 classics come in for maintenance with unsecured looms and other various defects

Cork boy 55

Stovepipe wrote: »

What also go the attention of the researchers was the amount of difficulty the overhead PSU panels and the unrestrained wiring created. The PSUs are the containers that hold the overhead oxygen masks and they should not have fallen down, nor should wiring looms and various plastic panels. As was correctly pointed out, they would have either caused injuries to passengers' heads, causing passengers to be knocked out and be unable to escape themselves or people would have been restrained by the loose wiring looms. The fact that the engines stayed running was a major mistake. they should have rigged a control to the fuel cut-offs. Apart from that, they didn't make any attempt to flare to land, which a real crew would have done instinctively, which mean that the flat, high vertical speed landing that did occur would not have happened.1500 ft/min vertically is too much for the gear to handle and which is why the overhead fittings came down.
i'd give it 6 out of ten.

regards
Stovepipe

Ya

But

(1) it was an old plane old model, we don't know what state the maintenance or parts on the panel and wiring it possible some stuff has been stripped out of it
(2) would bodies like the FAA and manufactures
already know these things from old crashes
I cannot recall any crash where passengers where hindered exiting by those cables someone correct me on that

I still think the whole exercise the way it was conducted and by its very nature is limited in scope form a science/safety/knowledge point of view
and has just a fancy episode of "amazing crashes caught on camera"
show

There must be a very good reason why bodies like the FAA and airlines manufactures have never down this besides the NASA screw up in the seventies