C4 - The Plane Crash
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
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.
But if you're bent double over a lap belt, you'd appear to be less likely to slip out of it?ETA there are anti-submarine seats for cars which are designed to work even if you're wearing a belt - I thought?
Edited by dr_gn on Friday 12th October 12:46
garyhun said:
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
Hooli said:
dr_gn said:
ETA there are anti-submarine seats for cars which are designed to work even if you're wearing a belt - I thought?
Isn't that seatbelt pre-tensioners do? hold you firmer in the seat so you can't slide out under the belt as the cushion deforms?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_seat#Anti-submari...
I think pre-tensioners take up any slack or stretch in the belts post-impact:
onyx39 said:
LotusOmega375D said:
I'd be happy to sit in rear-facing seats only if that helped survival rates at all.
I understand it would and military aircraft are (or at least) used to configured accordinglySimpo Two said:
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.
I thought the same. Some things I noted (apologies for my lack of aircraft knowledge):- How come they didn't know beforehand that the chaser plane wouldn't be fast enough?
- Why didn't they source a back up plane for the faster one?
- The scientists made a comment when they got their binoculars as if they'd never seen them before, why hadn't they been given proper training to use them?
- When she put numbers on the seats, she only put them on the aisle seats? Surely they could've afforded stickers for each seat?
- Why did the remote control have such bad range?
- Who the hell were those initial people in the plane who didn't seem to do much before jumping out?
- Why were the conclusions presented so badly? Rather than just saying "the brace position is safer because you don't break your neck" they spent 10 minutes building it up in an American-documentary style. It was immediately obvious that there was one broken ankle and a broken neck. They said "Could a snap off front wheel have helped?" then didn't answer it... Surely they could run a crude simulation to verify this? The top line conclusion seemed to be it was safer at the back, yes in this case, because they made sure the engines didn't catch fire!
Apologies if some of this was answered in the show, I missed about 10 minutes when I was doing the dishes.
Eric Mc said:
Because it wasn't a properly set up experiment. It was a TV programme.
I keep harping back to the 1984 test which was a properly run experiment.
Indeed, but surely they must have had a reasonably large budget, why didn't they just display facts? Why does everything have to be dramatic and recapped on every ad break I keep harping back to the 1984 test which was a properly run experiment.
Just got round to watching this.
Stirred up old memories as my father was killed in the Manchester disaster in 1985, a flight I should have been on but fate played a hand which meant I didn't go. I'd seen the footage on TV plenty of times before but I can't recall ever seeing all the bodies lined up under white sheets in a hangar.
It's interesting that David Beardmore, who survived, was sat in 13B. My father was in 16B.
Looking through the accident report, David Beardmore who was sat near the port wing, exited the plane on the forward starboard exit. So he travelled half the length of the plane to get out.
Anyway a great programme to watch.
Here's some light bedtime reading.
Pretty messy inside.
Stirred up old memories as my father was killed in the Manchester disaster in 1985, a flight I should have been on but fate played a hand which meant I didn't go. I'd seen the footage on TV plenty of times before but I can't recall ever seeing all the bodies lined up under white sheets in a hangar.
It's interesting that David Beardmore, who survived, was sat in 13B. My father was in 16B.
Looking through the accident report, David Beardmore who was sat near the port wing, exited the plane on the forward starboard exit. So he travelled half the length of the plane to get out.
Anyway a great programme to watch.
Here's some light bedtime reading.
Pretty messy inside.
Edited by Flawless Victory on Friday 12th October 16:23
If I recall correctly, it wasn't just the position of the passengers that decided their fate, but how they acted. They were told to stay seated - but it was the ones who thought 'No, I'm getting out PDQ' and used sheer animal survival instinct who got out, or at least improved their chances.
Simpo Two said:
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.
Well it worked. Just about everyone posting here watched it. It was on during prime time, did anyone expect any different? Listening to people who sound like they've had their adenoids removed talk about improving trim quality and wiring location to increase passenger safety for a couple of hours isn't going to get people watching. Crash, bang, big explosions with a smattering of playing on a common fear - of dying on an airliner? Too right it'll get people watching, and talking too.Flawless Victory said:
Just got round to watching this.
Stirred up old memories as my father was killed in the Manchester disaster in 1985, a flight I should have been on but fate played a hand which meant I didn't go. I'd seen the footage on TV plenty of times before but I can't recall ever seeing all the bodies lined up under white sheets in a hangar.
My brother's boss was on that flight. He lost his wife & evidently it came down to a choice to rescue her or his daughter. Truly awful.Stirred up old memories as my father was killed in the Manchester disaster in 1985, a flight I should have been on but fate played a hand which meant I didn't go. I'd seen the footage on TV plenty of times before but I can't recall ever seeing all the bodies lined up under white sheets in a hangar.
Edited by Flawless Victory on Friday 12th October 16:23
Simpo Two said:
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.
The presentation of the programme doesn't say anything about the conduct of the experiment. I looked at it as an experiment which was funded by the production of a TV programme. They didn't say very much about what the investigators were actually trying to achieve though, other than "they collected 10-years worth of data". There was a lot of scope to talk about how such situations are currently modelled, what the shortcomings of those models are and why the experimental data is important in validating assumptions and calculations.Unfortunately it doesn't seem possible for TV companies to make a programme without some imminent disaster. All the stuff about landing on towns and parachuting from the plane warranted a passing mention at most, not turning into a major theme. They missed an opportunity to make what could have been an extremely interesting programme in my opinion.
The end result was little more than a heavy landing. The programme said they were aiming for a 2000fpm rate of decent on impact, but I think they managed only 1600fpm. In most accidents like this, the tail section also breaks away (Turkish and BMI) so sitting right at the back is not always the best bet. I think they were expecting a bit more damage to the 727 than they actually got in the end to be honest.
The one thing which amazed me was an engine still running after the cockpit was ripped away! I don't know the 727 systems at all, but I guess there was electric power still available and the fuel lines remained intact to some degree! Reminds me of Castaway when Tom Hanks finally surfaces to find an engine still running, in the sea!
Interesting programme, but hardly staggering results! Most plane crashes result in a much more violent situation, one where survivability no-matter where you choose to sit, is highly unlikely. However, if the aircraft remains flyable, and the pilots are ontop of the situation, your chances are reasonable (hudson river & LOT 767).
If I had to choose a seat for best survival chances, I'd go for one over the wing, next to the exit.
As it happens, I'm always in row zero! Anyone coming to Alicante from Manchester on Tuesday?
Happy flying
The one thing which amazed me was an engine still running after the cockpit was ripped away! I don't know the 727 systems at all, but I guess there was electric power still available and the fuel lines remained intact to some degree! Reminds me of Castaway when Tom Hanks finally surfaces to find an engine still running, in the sea!
Interesting programme, but hardly staggering results! Most plane crashes result in a much more violent situation, one where survivability no-matter where you choose to sit, is highly unlikely. However, if the aircraft remains flyable, and the pilots are ontop of the situation, your chances are reasonable (hudson river & LOT 767).
If I had to choose a seat for best survival chances, I'd go for one over the wing, next to the exit.
As it happens, I'm always in row zero! Anyone coming to Alicante from Manchester on Tuesday?
Happy flying
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff