Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Ch4 last night- Plane Crash

RodneyCharltonTrottaRodneyCharltonTrotta
edited October 2012 in Not Sports Related
Thought it was a pretty good programme....interesting to see that NASA chucked millions at a similar study back in the 80s but it failed catastrophically. Shows how much technology has moved on since then.

Won't surprise me after last night if first class seating is now moved from the front of the plane!
«1

Comments

  • Options
    ValleyGaryValleyGary
    edited October 2012
    ha i did think that.

    that crash is apparently the 'most common' but im not sure how many planes fall steadily from just 3000ft?
  • Options
    MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    Yes, that was my initial thought too.
  • Options
    MrOneLungMrOneLung
    as most crashes are during landing or take off 3000ft is probably as good a test height as any I suppose.
  • Options
    CafcWestCafcWest
    I saw it. Good pogramme - but how many crash in the desert onto sand? And the front dropping was not too realistic either as that caused the front to rip off - if pilots were still on board I think they would have kept the nose up.
  • Options
    MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    Good point - it could only measure one type of survivable crash and in one type of plane. Although, it was accepted knowledge I think that it is generally safer to be at th eback rather than the front. Of course it is safer if th eplane doesn't crash full stop - which to be fair- most don't.
  • Options
    randy andyrandy andy
    You're probably safer in the middle, as unless the plane lands perfectly flat one end or the other is going to take the brunt of the impact, though you are probably better off at the back than the front.
  • Options
    MrOneLungMrOneLung
    I always thought the brace position was not really a safety measue but to preserve your teeth for dental identification...
  • Options
    ValleyGaryValleyGary
    the odds are that you would have to fly everyday for 21,000 years before being killed in a plane crash.

  • Options
    RodneyCharltonTrottaRodneyCharltonTrotta
    MrOneLung said:

    I always thought the brace position was not really a safety measue but to preserve your teeth for dental identification...

    I also believed the urban myth that they got you to do it so your neck breaks instantly on impact to reduce further suffering.

  • Options
    daveaddickdaveaddick
    Why is the cynical side of me is thinking Michael O'Leary is already figuring out how he can charge more to sit in the "safe" part of the plane
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    WoodsywoodWoodsywood
    New Ryanair option "pay only a extra £50 to sit in the safe part of the plane"
  • Options
    I-SAW-POUSO-PLAYI-SAW-POUSO-PLAY
    ValleyGary said:

    the odds are that you would have to fly everyday for 21,000 years before being killed in a plane crash.

    Exactly, rather them worry about how to make cars more resistant.
  • Options
    LincsaddickLincsaddick
    Most US military aircraft have the passenger seats facing the rear of the plane. This gives more support to the spine on crash landing and reduces forward momentum
  • Options
    golfaddickgolfaddick
    I watched it too - one thing I always say about crash test dummies is exactly that - they are dummies. In the real world would the person not in the brace position not shield his face or adopt the brace position AFTER the initial impact, instead of continuly getting hit by the flting debris.

    Saying that - it was surprising that the most damage would probbaly be done by parts of the plane itself & not objects falling from the overhead lockers.............it surprised me how much loose wires/cableling there was once the plane came to rest.

    it took me back years ago to a Tomorrows World programe I remember watching about aircraft fuel & how most fatalities were down to either the fire afterwards or the inhallation of the smoke & how scientists had come up with a special fuel that would eliminate this .................it seems never to have got off the ground (if you pardon the pun) which is surprising as it is one of the most common ways of dying in a plane crash (unless at sea)
  • Options
    HastingsaddickHastingsaddick
    Lincsaddick said:

    Most US military aircraft have the passenger seats facing the rear of the plane. This gives more support to the spine on crash landing and reduces forward momentum

    As does some of the seats in BA Buisness Class....very nice they were to.
  • Options
    kielyskickingbootskielyskickingboots
    randy andy said:

    You're probably safer in the middle, as unless the plane lands perfectly flat one end or the other is going to take the brunt of the impact, though you are probably better off at the back than the front.

    Theoretically yes, as the middle is the strongest part of the plane as that's where the wings are bolted onto the fuselage. The only problem is that it's also where the main fuel tanks are, along with the fuel stored in the wings, so if it goes up that's where you're likely to feel the heat first!

  • Options
    kielyskickingbootskielyskickingboots
    Lincsaddick said:

    Most US military aircraft have the passenger seats facing the rear of the plane. This gives more support to the spine on crash landing and reduces forward momentum

    This is true. Only problem is that passenger flights fly with a slightly nose up attitude, so with rear-facing seats it would mean passengers being pressed forward quite uncomfortably into their seatbelts for considerable periods and airlines don't think they would put up with that.
  • Options
    LincsaddickLincsaddick
    kielyskickingboots said:

    Lincsaddick said:

    Most US military aircraft have the passenger seats facing the rear of the plane. This gives more support to the spine on crash landing and reduces forward momentum

    This is true. Only problem is that passenger flights fly with a slightly nose up attitude, so with rear-facing seats it would mean passengers being pressed forward quite uncomfortably into their seatbelts for considerable periods and airlines don't think they would put up with that.
    Mmmm .. I suppose the rear facing seats could be angled to prevent the problem .. air crashes are so rare and as more and more people fly, it's a trade off between 'safety' and expense.
  • Options
    randy andyrandy andy
    Also, rear facing seat have to be higher (to support the head on all passengers) and more highly re-enforced (as they are now acting as a spine protector, rather than just a cushion to lean against). This all adds weight and size, two things no commercial airline will be happy about.
  • Options
    BDLBDL
    All Royal Air Force transports have the seats facing backwards
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    SouthAfricaAddickSouthAfricaAddick
    RodneyCharltonTrotta said:

    Thought it was a pretty good programme....interesting to see that NASA chucked millions at a similar study back in the 80s but it failed catastrophically. Shows how much technology has moved on since then.

    Wot?, when the plane was controlled by a bloke in another plane with a kids remote control plane controls ? - they'd obviously run out of budget by then !
  • Options
    Floyd MontanaFloyd Montana
    BDL said:

    All Royal Air Force transports have the seats facing backwards

    Must make it hard for the pilots!

    Seriously though in my experience most RAF transport planes are in fact simply charters with normal seats.

    I've flown on quite a few C 130's with side facing seats, not for 5 years or so now, granted - have they all changed BDL?

    The A400M looks a good replacement.

  • Options
    BDLBDL
    Floyd Montana said:

    BDL said:

    All Royal Air Force transports have the seats facing backwards


    Must make it hard for the pilots!

    Seriously though in my experience most RAF transport planes are in fact simply charters with normal seats.

    I've flown on quite a few C 130's with side facing seats, not for 5 years or so now, granted - have they all changed BDL?

    The A400M looks a good replacement.

    I'll caveat that with passenger planes flown by the RAF ;-) Tristars, VC10's, Voyager.

    Saw the A400 at Fairford this year, yep looks impressive but you can't beat a Herc

  • Options
    EastTerraceEastTerrace
    Haven't seen the programme yet but such a cruel thing to do to an old 727.

    At the risk of sounding even more like a Charlton supporter, would've loved to have gone on a VC10.
  • Options
    March51March51
    Prog being repeated now on Ch.4 seven.
  • Options
    MrOneLungMrOneLung
    cars are resitant enough - knocked someone over the other day and barely a scratch on my bonnet thank God.
    I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY said:

    ValleyGary said:

    the odds are that you would have to fly everyday for 21,000 years before being killed in a plane crash.

    Exactly, rather them worry about how to make cars more resistant.
  • Options
    Floyd MontanaFloyd Montana
    BDL said:

    Floyd Montana said:

    BDL said:

    All Royal Air Force transports have the seats facing backwards


    Must make it hard for the pilots!

    Seriously though in my experience most RAF transport planes are in fact simply charters with normal seats.

    I've flown on quite a few C 130's with side facing seats, not for 5 years or so now, granted - have they all changed BDL?

    The A400M looks a good replacement.

    I'll caveat that with passenger planes flown by the RAF ;-) Tristars, VC10's, Voyager.

    Saw the A400 at Fairford this year, yep looks impressive but you can't beat a Herc

    Haven't seen a VC 10 for a few years - except as a refuel taxi!

    Speaking as someone who has flown to the middle east few times on the old C130, my hearing would advise that you most definately CAN beat a Herc!
  • Options
    Floyd MontanaFloyd Montana
    EastTerrace said:

    Haven't seen the programme yet but such a cruel thing to do to an old 727.

    At the risk of sounding even more like a Charlton supporter, would've loved to have gone on a VC10.

    Masochist!
  • Options
    nth_london_addicknth_london_addick
    No suitcases in the over head lockers though

    Why

  • Options
    aliwibblealiwibble
    They did NLA. In fact they put some extra heavy ones in to test whether the lockers could stand the strain, which they did quite impressively - nothing fell out at all. It was just all the electrical circuits and trim coming down that caused the problems.

    What they didn't have was luggage in the cargo hold, which meant that they didn't have issues with the floor of the cabin being pushed upwards by the all the cargo when the underside of the plane buckled. That might have changed the type of leg injuries inflicted, and affected how easy it was to evacuate.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!