Writing this separately from the TV thread because, remarkable as it was as a piece of TV, I think most of the discussion it will stimulate here will be about travel and safety rather than TV.
Anyway, to summarize, a team led by a UK air accident investigator - but, curiously, funded by ...whom? - bought a retired 727 and performed a controlled crash into a dry lake bed in the Mexican desert. The idea was to create a 'survivable' situation - as most air accidents are - and to observe and measure the effects on the aircraft's structure, contents and, crucially, occupants.
It worked, despite some (false?) jeopardy from the weather, the Mexican authorities and a chase plane that broke down. Inside the plane didn't look like a good place to be, but most of the passengers would still have got out alive. And yes, the brace position is generally the best bet because it protects your head and back better than the alternatives.
Highly recommended viewing if you've not seen it already. Not ghoulish at all, and very informative and thought-provoking.
|
It was in its way, a bit contrived. It was not so much "a crash" more of a very very hard landing. I can see why they did it that way, most crashes are much less controlled than that and any data collection would be destroyed - making it a worthless exercise, everyone knows no-one would survive the normal crash. To be honest, apart from making interesting TV, nothing new was going to be learned from it, and indeed it wasn't. Safest at the back, brace position works, seatbelt on, they didn't need to destroy an aged obsolete plane to tell us that.
And it was all a bit amateurish, the slow chase plane, the archaic method of remote control, no backup fast chase plane.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Oct 12 at 09:20
|
|
The majority of passenger aircraft in use today have the engines slung under the wings. The outcome would have been a lot different if they had used one like that.
|
Interesting enough when we got to the nub. What was it a one hour and thirty five minute programme?
Didn't it take a time getting there!
Sit near the back, adopt the brace, do your belt up. When the had the plane there why didn't they try some rear-facing seats? What about full harness? Why not try car -type three point harness?
So many opportunities missed to try out some different ideas.
|
|
I watched it, and came to much the same conclusion. According to the commentry the moeny was raised by the jindividual researchers. I could see validity in the AAIB in funding a chunk. It all seemed a little string and chewing gum. Anyone notice the "commanding officers" from Rescue Global. Pouches and radios galore - but of an action man look to him. I know people like that....
|
>> Anyone notice the
>> "commanding officers" from Rescue Global. Pouches and radios galore - but of an action man
>> look to him. I know people like that....
>>
Yeah I spotted him too, looked like a right 'un.
|
...most crashes are much less controlled than that...
Not so, Z; most air accidents have survivors, and result from mishaps in takeoff or landing. The type some imagine of the plane falling out of level flight and smashing into the ground is vanishingly rare. Curious, then, that the people who start panicking and crossing themselves at the first hint of turbulence are often the same ones who were immersed in their reading matter or conversation throughout the safety demo and takeoff.
|
>> ...most crashes are much less controlled than that...
>>
>> Not so, Z; most air accidents have survivors, and result from mishaps in takeoff or
>> landing.
I would dispute the fact that "most" crashes have survivors. Perhaps we are disputing over what is an "accident" or a "crash"
|
|
I don't understand why rearward facing seats are not standard in aircraft. Avoid all that bracing or not bracing nonesense.
|
The punters dont like them. No idea why, I am perfectly happy to face rearwards on a train.
Grateful to get a seat in fact.
|
A few rear facing seats giving a 'club four' type arrangement were a feature of fifties airliners such as the Ambassador and (in some versions) the Viscount. The Trident 2 at Duxford has a whole block facing the rear.
I believe the rear facing seats on the Ambassador at Munich contributed to survival of some.
But on a modern airliner I think the'd be pretty uncomfortable while fuselage is pitched up after take off.
|
>>But on a modern airliner I think the'd be pretty uncomfortable while fuselage is pitched up after take off.
>>
About half the seats in BA long haul club class face backwards.
IIRC there is a little light to show that the seat back is in the "proper" position for take off and landing.
It does feel a little unusual at take off but all is forgotten when the drinks arrive :))
IIRC Vanguards also had rea facing seats cos we used to have a card school on board.l
|
|
The front row of a TU154 (Malev I think) is rear facing - makes for an interesting takeoff experience when sitting opposite a well endowed hungarian!
|
|
All RAF passanger planes of a certain era had reaer-ward facing seats IIRC. 'Cos they "knew"
|
|
They still do, well some anyway. The all pax version of the 10s have them rear facing, bit of an odd sensation when taking off. The tanker version has normal seats in the front cabin.
|
|
I don't think they were unique having rear facing seats, but I think the urinals in place of the toilets were!
|
|
The nice thing about the BA Club World seat is that the take off and landing position for the seat is less upright than in many planes. Indeed the seat will go to a 'more upright' position than is pre-set for the take-off/landing position. IIRC the correct brace position for those seats is to sit back and cross you arms across your chest, though I confesss, despite flying reasonably often, I can't actually remember...
|
>>And it was all a bit amateurish, the slow chase plane, the archaic method of remote control, no backup fast chase plane. <<
What would have worried me was if the 727 started to get away from the 'chase' plane, the radio control was then out of range. Hence all control would be lost with no hope of regaining an effective 50m range. Why did they not beef up the output power for the transmitter? Most DIY electronics would come up with something sutable , (although I would thought they were commercially available)- although it would probably upset? the electronics in the chase plane:)
- put that against the cost of a fireball failure.
|
I got the impression that the radio control did drop out at the end, although I had taken my attention off it for a few seconds (tea arrived).
A lot of accidents must happen under a degree of 'control'. Had there been a pilot in the front when it went in, he may well have been pulling up almost to a stall and the tail would have hit first, (cf. Kegworth) so that might have broken off, or possibly trying to land with 'normal' pitch (cf. Heathrow flight 38). Though I appreciate they weren't trying to simulate a specific accident.
I agree there wasn't much new that was obvious, maybe in detail they got something they hadn't had before. But why not take the opportunity to try some full harness belts and rear facing seats? Or at least tell us why they didn't?
When you think about it the safety equipment on aircraft if pretty half hearted, starting with the lap belts, and then there is the overhead storage - full of heavy stuff that always appears to rain down on the occupants. Of course if it drops like a stone then it's irrelevant.
The reasoning about "finding the best place to sit to survive" was just stupid. What are they going to do? Make planes that only have seats in the middle? Or charge more for the 'safer' ones and put the riff raff below the waterline, Titanic style?
Can you imagine the fighting on Ryanair if the masses really took that sort of thing in - hilarious.
|
|
They could have just filmed my attempt at a flap 3 landing into Heathrow the other week, which would have given them all the info they needed...
|
>> They could have just filmed my attempt at a flap 3 landing into Heathrow the
>> other week, which would have given them all the info they needed...
A bit blustery was it? Clearly it was a good landing, as you are here to tell us :-)
|
|
Could be emailing from his hospital bed?
|
>> A lot of accidents must happen under a degree of 'control'. Had there been a
>> pilot in the front when it went in, he may well have been pulling up
>> almost to a stall and the tail would have hit first, (cf. Kegworth)
Alas the crew have a lot of input into causing the crash in the first place!
|
|
The problem with rear facing seats is people like SWMBO who point blank refuses to sit on any sort of transport facing backwards. I've only ever flown backwards once (Dan Air BAC 111 IIRC) and apart from the weird sensation at take-off found it perfectly acceptable.
|
having studied the data i can see now why some un paying passengers prefer gluing themselves to the under carriage stantions
|
I remember hearing/seeing (may have been on one of the "Aircrash Investigation" programmes) from an Ex-Corporate Lawyer that was being interviewed, that (not a lot of people know this!) the "Brace" position was actually devised by the Aircraft Corporations to "Kill". Allegedly the inertia of the arms, with the hands clasped behind the head, is supposed to "pull" the head off the Spinal-cord, due to the sudden rapid deceleration of the Aircraft on impact.
This is supposedly because the Airlines would rather pay a "One-off" claim for Death, than multiple on-going Medical-needs claims for the remaining life of the victims.
The fact that in this programme the "Brace" position showed to be the "best" may not have been so, or may in fact not be so in other crash/accident scenarios.
|
>> I remember hearing/seeing (may have been on one of the "Aircrash Investigation" programmes) from an
>> Ex-Corporate Lawyer that was being interviewed, that (not a lot of people know this!) the
>> "Brace" position was actually devised by the Aircraft Corporations to "Kill". Allegedly the inertia of
>> the arms, with the hands clasped behind the head, is supposed to "pull" the head
>> off the Spinal-cord, due to the sudden rapid deceleration of the Aircraft on impact.
>> This is supposedly because the Airlines would rather pay a "One-off" claim for Death, than
>> multiple on-going Medical-needs claims for the remaining life of the victims.
>> The fact that in this programme the "Brace" position showed to be the "best" may
>> not have been so, or may in fact not be so in other crash/accident scenarios.
Yeah right, I am really going to be gripping my head hard enough to pull it off.
|
Yes, you can file that one next to '9/11 was an inside job'. The Kegworth survivor in the programme explains that the recommended brace position was modified after that accident.
I know the answer to this one already, of course, but I wonder if the airlines will take notice of this to extent of putting their seats far enough apart for passengers to actually adopt the brace position.
|
Like one of the comments infers, dropping a Dummy from 10 feet is hardly enough evidence to "Bust" the Myth that the "Brace is best".
Also, they are not apparently disputing the origin of the position, just whether or not it is as effective as claimed.
|
The idea is to be uninjured enough to be able to get out of the plane quickly in the event of a survivable crash.
If you are not out in under 90 seconds, preferably a minute, experiences say you are a dead un.
|
>> The idea is to be uninjured enough to be able to get out of the plane quickly in the event of a survivable crash
Leg injuries are the biggie for keeping survivors inside the cabin.
2 smashed shins off the frame in front inside a burning fuselage and you probably wish you'd transected your spine.
|
>2 smashed shins off the frame in front inside a burning fuselage and you probably wish
>you'd transected your spine.
If the fuselage is burning, smoke inhalation is your biggest threat.
There are passive smoke hoods available that will give you about a minute of extra time to get out but the only requirement is for life jackets?
Go figure.
|
|
i think they were trialled but they were too disorientating and hindered people leaving the aircraft.
|
>i think they were trialled but they were too disorientating and hindered people leaving the aircraft.
Something that gives you an extra minute of breathing space and allows you to keep your eyes open was disorientating?
Given the choice, would you rather have a smoke hood or a lifejacket?
|
|
As has been said you have probably not much more than a minute to get our of the plane. The view was that fumbling around looking for a smoke hood may not be the best way to spend that time.
|
>> Given the choice, would you rather have a smoke hood or a lifejacket?
Look, I was a huge critic of life jackets and life-rafts in planes as an archaic throwback of the cruise liner days. WHo ever survived when you crashed in water I said. What a waste of time I said.
Then flight 1549 landed in the Hudson.
|
|
in an accident things that seem simply aren't. People putting them on back to front etc. Lack of vision if you aren't used it it can be off putting. You will spent more time than you should getting used to it. That time should be getting out, if you aren't out quickly you're dead.
|
|
Read somewhere that the most important safety feature on an aircraft was the passenger - identify your exit plan your escape route - listen to the briefing - keep your eyes and ears open, read the safety card, keep your shoes on, stay sober and keep your seat belt on.
|
>> Read somewhere that the most important safety feature on an aircraft was the passenger -
>> identify your exit plan your escape route -
Aye, know your exit route, and a reserve in case your first choice is not possible. Applies in theatres/concerts/films/Exhibitions etc etc. Only takes a quick glance around to get them fixed in your mind.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Oct 12 at 23:20
|
|
My mother was convinced years ago that under your seat on a plane was a parachute! Even when told there wasn't she still believed there had to be one. Trying to explain why it was not the case and it wouldn't be much use didn't register. She thought there simply had to be one in case you had to jump.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 12 Oct 12 at 23:28
|
>> Aye, know your exit route, and a reserve in case your first choice is not possible. >>Applies in theatres/concerts/films/Exhibitions etc etc.
>> Only takes a quick glance around to get them fixed in your mind.
>>
And hotels?
I was told to count the doors from your room to the nearest exits prior to entering your room. This may be the last time you see them as you just count them again as you crawl under the smoke to the exit.
I used to have a pair of those eyeball sized swim goggles with me.
IIRC after 15 SECONDS in nasty smoke your eyes clam shut.
Seems accurate from my experience near smoky bonfires ( that you can easily run away from )
|
>> >> Aye, know your exit route, and a reserve in case your first choice is
>> not possible. >>Applies in theatres/concerts/films/Exhibitions etc etc.
>> >> Only takes a quick glance around to get them fixed in your mind.
>> >>
Reminds me of infantry training - always look around for the nearest cover as you move, in case of surprise incoming fire.
|
|
Despite not being ever a Boy Scout I always have a torch to hand when away from home.
|
It was a simple question.
>Given the choice, would you rather have a smoke hood or a lifejacket?
|
South American residents may also have a choice of marinade for the bodies of fellow passengers.
Please ask the cabin crew for details.
|
Suspect lifejackets are a throwback to era of the flying boat.
Zero rightly mentions the flight that ended in the Hudson. There are also a handful of landing overruns/aborted take off incidents at coastal airports where the a/c has ended up in water and life jackets helped. But to be honest they're a few hundred kg of unnecessary cargo 99.99999% of flights.
Apart from the BA airtours 737 at MCR in 1985 there are a vanishingly small number of incidents where smoke hoods might have helped.
Like cycle helmets they create an illusion of security to the detriment of real precautions.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 00:00
|
So 0.00001% of the time they'll save my life?
Not much, but better than 0%.
Not at the moment, but when I'm busy I'll catch a couple of hundred flights a year, so anything above 0% is good.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 02:19
|
I have to practice using a smoke hood once a year. They're bulky, inconvenient things and require thinking time before using. You can grab a lifejacket and go, putting it on in the water if necessary.
Smoke hoods last for about 15 minutes and are designed for fire fighting inside the aircraft. Whether you could get a passive one that just filters the air, I do t know.
And, of course, they're not light when packed up. Two hundred smoke hoods probably mean there's a good chance you'd be going on holiday without your suitcase...
|
>> Two hundred smoke hoods probably mean
>> there's a good chance you'd be going on holiday without your suitcase...
just tell Nicolle its the in thing this year, and she will easily pack 200 in her bag.
>And, of course, they're not light when packed up
Nicolle's bags again.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 13:16
|
>Whether you could get a passive one that just filters the air, I do t know. And, of course,
>they're not light when packed up. Two hundred smoke hoods probably mean there's a good
>chance you'd be going on holiday without your suitcase...
You can buy passive smoke hoods that use activated carbon and claim to filter out smoke etc. for a limited period, typically a few minutes.
There's even one here: www.hkmask.com/product.htm that weighs about 60gm. That's less than the tat-buyer's guide in the seat pocket.
How effective or distracting they would be in a real incident I don't know. I've never seen the results of any tests being done.
An article from the Telegraph that covers most things:
www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4269453/How-to-survive-a-plane-crash.html
Thankfully I don't have to do as much flying as I used to. I hate it.
|
You could tie the sick bag over your head?
And hope it was a clean one.
|
>You could tie the sick bag over your head?
I hadn't thought of that.
It wouldn't have been any use on the flight I endured sat next to a guy with raging halitosis though.
|
>>
>> Not at the moment, but when I'm busy I'll catch a couple of hundred flights
>> a year, so anything above 0% is good.
>>
That's some flying, you need your own private jet!
|
>> So 0.00001% of the time they'll save my life?
>>
>> Not much, but better than 0%.
>>
>> Not at the moment, but when I'm busy I'll catch a couple of hundred flights
>> a year, so anything above 0% is good.
The figures after the decimal were a guess - I suspect a lot more nines in reality!!!
|
Twenty-odd years ago I had a flight in one of the Airship Industries airships out of Cardington.
The safety briefing (given by one of the guys in the front seats - no separate cockpit) included the information about life jackets, in case we crash landed in a swimming pool. Quite possible when you see how many there are down there.
|
The figures after the decimal were a guess - I suspect a lot more nines in reality!!!
I guess so, but if there's no down side, then its still better than nothing. People, including me, buy lottery tickets on worse odds.
|
>> I am really going to be gripping my head hard enough to pull it off.
Doesn`t take that much force apparently! - body wieght x 6ft drop (whatever "G" force that amounts to) is usually sufficient. This force would be many times higher in a A/C impact.
And dont forget as your Bu7m tightened at the impending doom, so would your grip!
|
|
I too wonder if you get adopt the correct position in cattle class.
|
|
We flew in a Thomas Cook 767 to Crete a few weeks ago. It's the most cramped and uncomfortable flight I've been on. I know that TC now use wide body jet on short haul routes as they have merged flights to save money, but this was ridiculous. There were some er...larger passengers on that flight, goodness only knows how they would have fared in an emergency evacuation and how they fitted into the the narrow slots we were all allocated. The low-light of the flight when a superannuated pony tailed codger almost stuck his family jewels in my gob as he struggled down the aisle on his 15th trip to the bog. Any hope of a snooze on the way back went out of the window.
|
|
I won't go on any planes anymore if I can help it.Uncomfortable cramped one bog for the many unless on the long distance flights there might be two.No thanks.
|
We were on a TC 757 last weekend coming back from Preveza. Not a lot of legroom.
Last summer we flew with Strategic Airlines and were a bit dubious of them. More legroom for sure. I think there was a little more legroom on the Monarch flights to/from Lesvos we travelled on in May too.
|
I seem to have a leg pitch (spine to knee) greater than most cattle class airline seats. I now avoid flights of more than a couple of hours whenever possible.
Went to Minorca last month, Thomson's flights. Going was in a 727 IIRC. It had Thomson's logo stuck over the owners name (Thomas Cook I think). That was an old heap of a 'plane.
|
|
Didn't think that the 727 was allowed to fly in UK anymore on noise regs.
|
|
I'm fairly sure that was the heading on the safety sheet, although I may be wrong.
|
>> I'm fairly sure that was the heading on the safety sheet, although I may be
>> wrong.
If you put the flight number and date into flightradar24.com you'll be able to identify the specific frame and its route over the ground.
|
Dan Air and Sabre are only operators of UK 72's that spring to mind.
From adoption of the 737 in 1968 until recent merger with First Choice Britannia/Thomson flew an all Boeing fleet 737/757/767 but not the 72. First Choice introduced Scarebus types into the mix.
My guess would be either 757 - looks like a mantis or grasshopper or 737 - plane spotters called them pigs for a reason.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 12 Oct 12 at 21:09
|
Thanks Bromps.
My mistake, it was a 757 G-000X. Probably over ten years old.
I was surprised to notice it didn't have wing-tip winglets, so I guessed it was a little long in the tooth.
|
Winglets are an aftermarket retrofit for 757s, so the operator probably decided the a/c isn't flying enough for the cost to offset the approx 2% reduction in fuel burn.
Also, a 10 year old 757 is barely 1/3 way through its service life.
|
Nigh on 20yrs old. Registration history here:
www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=reg&fullregmark=OOOX
It's also had a Canadian registration but that was probably due to winter season operation over the pond.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 09:29
|
>> Nigh on 20yrs old. Registration history here:
>>
So what happened to it between 12/08 and 04/10? According to the info in the link it was still owned by the same company. Was it mothballed? SORNed?
|
>>>> Nigh on 20yrs old.
Same vintage as my KIA.
|
>> So what happened to it between 12/08 and 04/10? According to the info in the
>> link it was still owned by the same company. Was it mothballed? SORNed?
>>
Operating in Canada as C FLOX:
www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=C-FLOX
|
C4: The Plane Crash - Zero
