C4 - The Plane Crash
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I was specifically referring to the precise conditions as set up for this programme -
airliner on a landing approach with a deliberately excessive rate of decent.
I can think of very few accidents - even accidents that happened during the landing phase - that were caused by an exceessive rate of decent AND with the undercarriage lowered at the same time.
airliner on a landing approach with a deliberately excessive rate of decent.
I can think of very few accidents - even accidents that happened during the landing phase - that were caused by an exceessive rate of decent AND with the undercarriage lowered at the same time.
Eric Mc said:
Nice - I always like well mannered debate.
20 years you say -
Sioux City 1989 - 23 years
Kegworth - 1988 - 24 years
Delta Fort Worth - 1985 - 27 years
And I'm pretty sure the Eastern Airlines 727 accidnt must at least 30 years old
All very different accidents.
20 years you say -
Sioux City 1989 - 23 years
Kegworth - 1988 - 24 years
Delta Fort Worth - 1985 - 27 years
And I'm pretty sure the Eastern Airlines 727 accidnt must at least 30 years old
All very different accidents.
We can have the debate Eric, but you specifically asked about accidents with undercarriage down. Then when I provide them, you pick fault on the dates. Do you wonder why it is you receive a disproportionate number of ill mannered responses? I wonder what's in it for you, I really do.
OK - I now see that it's my fault that you are rude. That's OK. I can live with that.
It wasn't just landing gear down accidents I was talking about. It was landing gear down on approach coupled with a high rate of decent.
Most landing accidents are not specifically down to high rates of decent. They are usually due to misalignment with the runway, failure to operate proper approach procedures or runway over runs. The rate of decent is not usually the issue.
There are exceptions, of course. The wind sheer accidents you mentioned would fall into that category - but they are all quite a long time ago now and much work has been done to train flight crews into handling wind sheer on approach and the number of incidents have dropped dramatically since the 1985 Delta L1011 crash at Dallas.
The DC-10 crash at Sioux City (also over 20 years ago now) did feature a high rate of decent but that was due to the fact that the aircraft was virtually uncontrollable - and the crew performed magnificently to get the aeroplane anywhere near the airport at all. In other hands, it might have just fallen out of the sky like a stone. It was a very untypical accident.
In the early era of 727 operations (1963 to around 1966) there were definitely a number of accidents where the crew allowed the 727 their aircraft to sink far too fast on approach. The Channel 4 experiment would have been very useful in 1965 - but less so now.
It wasn't just landing gear down accidents I was talking about. It was landing gear down on approach coupled with a high rate of decent.
Most landing accidents are not specifically down to high rates of decent. They are usually due to misalignment with the runway, failure to operate proper approach procedures or runway over runs. The rate of decent is not usually the issue.
There are exceptions, of course. The wind sheer accidents you mentioned would fall into that category - but they are all quite a long time ago now and much work has been done to train flight crews into handling wind sheer on approach and the number of incidents have dropped dramatically since the 1985 Delta L1011 crash at Dallas.
The DC-10 crash at Sioux City (also over 20 years ago now) did feature a high rate of decent but that was due to the fact that the aircraft was virtually uncontrollable - and the crew performed magnificently to get the aeroplane anywhere near the airport at all. In other hands, it might have just fallen out of the sky like a stone. It was a very untypical accident.
In the early era of 727 operations (1963 to around 1966) there were definitely a number of accidents where the crew allowed the 727 their aircraft to sink far too fast on approach. The Channel 4 experiment would have been very useful in 1965 - but less so now.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 12th October 09:30
I don't know what you two are arguing about really. You are both talking nonsense.
What on earth is a crash "caused by an excessive rate of descent with the gear down"?
Every accident has a myriad of causes and the smashing into the ground thing is just a consequence of something else.
Of the list put up, only the DFW crash is similar and that was caused by a microburst on approach which smacked the thing into the ground. The rest all hit the ground obviously, but then again everything does, gravity tends to ensure that happens...
What on earth is a crash "caused by an excessive rate of descent with the gear down"?
Every accident has a myriad of causes and the smashing into the ground thing is just a consequence of something else.
Of the list put up, only the DFW crash is similar and that was caused by a microburst on approach which smacked the thing into the ground. The rest all hit the ground obviously, but then again everything does, gravity tends to ensure that happens...
True.
I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
Eric Mc said:
True.
I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
I got the impression that a lot of the information they were trying to glean was about how the occupants and interior would behave in an accident (in terms of rapid decelaration.)I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
On that basis, the TYPE of impact is irrelevant as long as the rapid decelaration can be replicated?
Given I already thought:
a)Sit over the wings as that's the strongest part of the air frame. Front or back can snap off. But that usually finishes as a chunk.
and
b)Debris is as likely to kill you as anything else. Therefore the benefit of getting your head down between the seats has to be good.
I'm not sure we learned anything much except if you try and crash a plane it really annoys people on the internet that you didn't do it their way (which as they are from the internet is clearly superior).
a)Sit over the wings as that's the strongest part of the air frame. Front or back can snap off. But that usually finishes as a chunk.
and
b)Debris is as likely to kill you as anything else. Therefore the benefit of getting your head down between the seats has to be good.
I'm not sure we learned anything much except if you try and crash a plane it really annoys people on the internet that you didn't do it their way (which as they are from the internet is clearly superior).
onyx39 said:
Eric Mc said:
True.
I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
I got the impression that a lot of the information they were trying to glean was about how the occupants and interior would behave in an accident (in terms of rapid decelaration.)I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Just wondering actually.... the chase plane isn't quite fast enough. What if, once the pilots had bailed, the speed of the 727 crept up a little? then flew slightly out of the poor range of the radio controllers? What was their contingency for that? Lol an aircraft full of dummies flying in a straight line over america... would of been interesting!
The 'plane was already set into a decent when the pilot baled, the remote control only made small adjustments, so the 'plane still remained in decent. Had the RX lost signal, the 'plane still would have crashed regardless, just not as close to the impact site.shakotan said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Just wondering actually.... the chase plane isn't quite fast enough. What if, once the pilots had bailed, the speed of the 727 crept up a little? then flew slightly out of the poor range of the radio controllers? What was their contingency for that? Lol an aircraft full of dummies flying in a straight line over america... would of been interesting!
The 'plane was already set into a decent when the pilot baled, the remote control only made small adjustments, so the 'plane still remained in decent. Had the RX lost signal, the 'plane still would have crashed regardless, just not as close to the impact site.Eric Mc said:
True.
I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
That the internal wiring is a hamper to rapid disembarkation. You could improve survivability for a relatively low cost by improving the wiring harnesses...I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
It did seem to be generating a fair amount of poke though. With the cockpit essentially removed during the impact, I am pretty sure the throttle settings left by the crew before they departed were completely messed up by the cockpit being taken off, throttle positions moved on impact etc. I was surprised that one of the engines kept running. I would have thought that an airliner would have some sort of inertia cut-off switch - as is fitted to most cars these days.
shakotan said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Just wondering actually.... the chase plane isn't quite fast enough. What if, once the pilots had bailed, the speed of the 727 crept up a little? then flew slightly out of the poor range of the radio controllers? What was their contingency for that? Lol an aircraft full of dummies flying in a straight line over america... would of been interesting!
The 'plane was already set into a decent when the pilot baled, the remote control only made small adjustments, so the 'plane still remained in decent. Had the RX lost signal, the 'plane still would have crashed regardless, just not as close to the impact site.LukeSi said:
Aircraft should be crash tested in a similar fashion to how cars are 
That would be fun to watch on youtube.
Like this you mean That would be fun to watch on youtube.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
Didn't watch it all, but:
Did anyone else notice the pool of liquid under the nose of the black chase plane when they were starting the engine? Thought it looked a bit odd at the time, especially since it had gone/evaporated by the time the engine had been running a while.
Is the "crash position" primarily to stop you from submarining under the seat in front?
Did they deliberately not want a fire in order to preserve the results - how did they prevent a fire?
Did anyone else notice the pool of liquid under the nose of the black chase plane when they were starting the engine? Thought it looked a bit odd at the time, especially since it had gone/evaporated by the time the engine had been running a while.
Is the "crash position" primarily to stop you from submarining under the seat in front?
Did they deliberately not want a fire in order to preserve the results - how did they prevent a fire?
dr_gn said:
Is the "crash position" primarily to stop you from submarining under the seat in front?
Submarining is when you're not wearing a seat (lap) belt. Crash position I think is simply to stop you smashing your face into the seat in front under sudden deceleration. dr_gn said:
Did they deliberately not want a fire in order to preserve the results - how did they prevent a fire?
There did seem to be some odd editing, and the whole thing seemed to be remarkably amateurish. Almost as if it was paid for by a second-rate TV channel looking for something sensational.Surprised the nose broke off though.
onyx39 said:
Eric Mc said:
True.
I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
I got the impression that a lot of the information they were trying to glean was about how the occupants and interior would behave in an accident (in terms of rapid decelaration.)I was debating whether the staged accident replicated much of what would be likely to happen in real life.
Such experiments are only worthwhile if they give us new and meaningful information that can be incorporated in new airliner design.
I'm not sure that deliberately slamming an old 727 into the ground at a high sink rate with the gear down tells us an awful lot that wasn't known already.
On that basis, the TYPE of impact is irrelevant as long as the rapid decelaration can be replicated?
Having the wheels down might have been because IIRC most air accidents are during landing or take-off?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff