Horizon...... Surviving Aeroplane Crashes...

[mosaix]

Horizon is a science based BBC TV program in the UK. Maybe some other countries get it as well? It used to very high quality but has recently, in my opinion much like a lot of UK TV, dumbed down a lot.

Anyway part of tonight's program came as a complete surprise. Between the years 1982 and 1999 there were over 530 'plane crashes in the US alone. In those crashes over 95% of passengers and crew survived.

First, I was surprsied by the number of crashes, but I was even more surprised by the survival rate.

Perception is a strange thing. I suppose we only hear about the crashes that have fatalities and so assume they are the norm.


BTW a while back an interviewer asked the Director General of ths BBC about dumbing down of their programs. His response was that every Director Genaral since the start BBC had been accused of presiding over dumbing down of programs. End of interview.

Sometimes, just sometimes I wish I could swap places with an interviewer for just a second. I was crying out for the guy to say "Well perhaps it's time someone took it seriously then."

This seems to be two threads in one - sorry.

 

[jackokent]

I've just had this on in the background, seem to have missed all the important tips so am probably doomed in a crash situation. But I too was surprised at how many people survived.

I'd always assumed the "brace" possition was to kiss your a*** goodbye. I was really amazed to learn it was actually useful.

 

[mosaix]

Apparently lots of people survive the crash but fail to get out and die in the fire and smoke.

If you do survive, and the brace position is best (kiss whatever you like!), then to ensure you have the best possible chance of getting out, sit within seven rows of a useable exit.

I'm not quite sure how, when you get on a plane you can distinguish between a useable and an unuseable exit. A polite enquiry to a steward along the lines of "Does this exit actually work?" may seem like a little like casting doubt on the competence of the ground crew. Also it may cause a deal of panic and swapping of seats.

 

[jackokent]

I was concerned about the planes that ran out of fuel. Not only do we need to ask about useable exits but clearly we need to enquire "have you filled up?" And what about usueable engines?

 

[Paige Turner]

A polite enquiry to a steward along the lines of "Does this exit actually work?" may seem like a little like casting doubt on the competence of the ground crew. Also it may cause a deal of panic and swapping of seats.

"Actually, sir, these ones are just painted on. We find it calms the passengers."

 

[mosaix]

"This is your captain speaking. If you would care to look out of the window you will notice that all four engines have stopped. You may also notice an orange liferaft floating in the sea below. I will be directing rescue operations from here."

 

[ray gower]

Have to be careful about air accidents. Like the old adage 'Any landing you walk away from is a good landing', a crash merely means the aeroplane won't take off again, it can be almost anything: the driver misses the taxiway and lands in the grass, blown tyre, engine or two drop off, even a lump of wing is dumped in flight; none are immediately life threatening, but are all termed air accidents.

As for crash position, it is the best solution for an otherwise bad job and brought about because passengers prefer to face forward. The better solution is to face backward as in most air force transports

 

[PTeppic]

"This is your captain speaking. If you would care to look out of the window you will notice that all four engines have stopped. "

ISTR that this happened to a 747 over Hong Kong. Became the world's biggest glider. Until the pilot restarted one or more engine and landed safely.

As for running out of fuel, they do the maths for the journey, with an extra allowance for weather and emergencies. However, if there's a leak, some really bad bad head winds, a huge holding pattern (bad weather or terrorism on the ground etc.), or they get the maths wrong, then in a very small number of cases they run out. How many have you heard of? (Compared to malfunctions)

 

[PTeppic]

As for crash position, it is the best solution for an otherwise bad job and brought about because passengers prefer to face forward. The better solution is to face backward as in most air force transports

Funny - having watched it all the way through - they went through many different options for surviving the crash, the smoke, the evacuation, crashing in water, but all with (if you like) the existing fundamental aircraft layout. No-one did what they should have and said, "actually, you'd get 85.4% fewer casualties if everyone faced backwards"

 

[carrie221]

ISTR that this happened to a 747 over Hong Kong. Became the world's biggest glider. Until the pilot restarted one or more engine and landed safely.

As for running out of fuel, they do the maths for the journey, with an extra allowance for weather and emergencies. However, if there's a leak, some really bad bad head winds, a huge holding pattern (bad weather or terrorism on the ground etc.), or they get the maths wrong, then in a very small number of cases they run out. How many have you heard of? (Compared to malfunctions)

That doesn't sound like fun... I really hope they have someone double checking the math for fuel.

 

[jackokent]

Some one told me today that one airline deliberately cut the fuel quota fine so that their planes would automatically take priority when they are queuing up in the air at the destination airport, waiting to be given a place by airtraffic control. I have no idea whether this is true on not.

 

[ray gower]

No it is not, the rules dictate that they must have sufficient fuel to allow for a couple of hours additional flying.

That said, the calculation is a balance depending on load and weather conditions. A Jumbo with full passenger list, cargo load and fuel tanks is going by road.

 

[jackokent]

Funny - having watched it all the way through - they went through many different options for surviving the crash, the smoke, the evacuation, crashing in water, but all with (if you like) the existing fundamental aircraft layout. No-one did what they should have and said, "actually, you'd get 85.4% fewer casualties if everyone faced backwards"

Except the pilot

 

[PTeppic]

No reason why the pilot has to be at the front facing forwards. The only thing they really need to be there for is landing. Everything else is situational awareness (i.e. where is the horizon) and instruments. (A non-pilot...)

 

[jackokent]

No reason why the pilot has to be at the front facing forwards. The only thing they really need to be there for is landing. Everything else is situational awareness (i.e. where is the horizon) and instruments. (A non-pilot...)

You sound like the expert, I didn't know any of this.

However, there is probably a confidence / preceptual issue. Next time I fly, what ever you say, I want my pilot to by facing forwards

 

[mosaix]

Funny - having watched it all the way through - they went through many different options for surviving the crash, the smoke, the evacuation, crashing in water, but all with (if you like) the existing fundamental aircraft layout. No-one did what they should have and said, "actually, you'd get 85.4% fewer casualties if everyone faced backwards"

Maybe, but you know that bit just after take-off when the 'plane climbs really, really, steeply? Well we'd all slide out of our seats.

BTW I'm with Jacko on the pilot facing the front looking out of the window. You know, just in case there's another 'plane on the runway?