How To Survive A Plane Crash
- Thread starter Roadkill
- Start date
)
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
And not only if it crashes......boohoo said:
You could be brutally hacked to death by middle eastern highjackers, you could contract some hideous flesh eating virus from that dodgy looking bloke in row 12, you could get deep vein thrombosis and die from a pulmonary or cerebral embolism, you could choke on the complimentary peanuts (not a problem on RyanAir....
), the list is practically endless! 
boohoo
No.
EastEnder said:And not only if it crashes......
You could be brutally hacked to death by middle eastern highjackers, you could contract some hideous flesh eating virus from that dodgy looking bloke in row 12, you could get deep vein thrombosis and die from a pulmonary or cerebral embolism, you could choke on the complimentary peanuts (not a problem on RyanAir....
This doesn't bother me. It's not the death - it's the panicing people.
Life is just one big list of potential death situations.....
Hollis said:
Last year, my supervisor and I had just taken off from Bremerhaven airport in a turboprop plane flying to Schipol. Flying over the city, virtually none of whose buildings dated from before about 1950, it was easy to imagine you were actually looking out of the window of a Lancaster bomber...
boohoo
No.
Hollis said:But I do enjoy flying. I engage in creative visualisation and imagine there's an Me 110 floating around outside, abit of flak coming up, or I'm on my way back from a night raid.
Takes my mind off the Arab bombers.
I don't enjoy getting on the plane and I find the flight boring (possibly because I spend most the time worrying that we are gonna crash and that I'll be surrounded by people panicing!!). Take off and landing is cool.
pseudonarcissus
fluttering and dancing
boohoo said:
"beer and wine four pounds...cocktails 5 pounds...parachutes 100 pounds...the duty free trolly will be round shortly"
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
That was a slightly misleading statistic....lizzieloo said:
A) Plane comes in to land, tyre bursts, skids a bit, everyone gets to go "weee!" as they jump down the emergency chutes.
B) Plane slams into a mountain at 400 mph.
Both A & B are classed as "plane crashes".
How many of those 90% were on B........
EastEnder said:That was a slightly misleading statistic....
A) Plane comes in to land, tyre bursts, skids a bit, everyone gets to go "weee!" as they jump down the emergency chutes.
B) Plane slams into a mountain at 400 mph.
Both A & B are classed as "plane crashes".
How many of those 90% were on B........
Well it was Horizon, can't take it as fact
EastEnder said:That was a slightly misleading statistic....
A) Plane comes in to land, tyre bursts, skids a bit, everyone gets to go "weee!" as they jump down the emergency chutes.
B) Plane slams into a mountain at 400 mph.
Both A & B are classed as "plane crashes".
How many of those 90% were on B........
Plus, small aircraft are included in the figures. Although they go down more often than airliners, I'd imagine quite a high proportion of people survive because you need less space to land a small plane without it hitting some part of the scenery, and a higher proportion of people on smaller planes have some idea of what to do in an emergency.
Juice Terry
rama lama fa fa fa
Reminds me of that exercise they did with a plane and a couple of hundred skint students. They basically filled the plane and told them the first ones out the door got fifty quid. They concluded that in a real emergency 90% of them would have burned to death in the ensuing chaos.
I wish we had the option of a test-run course for aircraft emergency, so that we can at least have a vague idea of the scenario we might be faced with in the event of an accident.
It's bad enough figuring out how to operate the emergency equipment with a calm and clear mind, but when you are in panic mode normal cognition is not taking place. You switch from thinking thoughts to thinking senses, so anything that's not instinctual or that you haven't done before is going to be really hard behaviour to effect.
Not saying they should be mandatory, but would be nice to have the option.
In regards to the front cross safety belt thing, I would imagine that the impact forces you're experiencing in an airplane are so much larger than the impact you'd experience in a car that you can't really compare the two. Perhaps the cross strap would break your sternum if you impacted heavily enough, or if it didnt' stand up to the pressure, it would snap and you wouldn't be in the brace position, thus breaking your skull and then your back.
It's bad enough figuring out how to operate the emergency equipment with a calm and clear mind, but when you are in panic mode normal cognition is not taking place. You switch from thinking thoughts to thinking senses, so anything that's not instinctual or that you haven't done before is going to be really hard behaviour to effect.
Not saying they should be mandatory, but would be nice to have the option.
In regards to the front cross safety belt thing, I would imagine that the impact forces you're experiencing in an airplane are so much larger than the impact you'd experience in a car that you can't really compare the two. Perhaps the cross strap would break your sternum if you impacted heavily enough, or if it didnt' stand up to the pressure, it would snap and you wouldn't be in the brace position, thus breaking your skull and then your back.
mattie
missing in inaction
catrina said:
But assuming the impact force in an air crash are larger than in a car crash (more on which later), what would be the point in using a belt that has been shown to offer insufficient support/restraint in a car crash?
I'm not quite sure what point you're making when you query whether the belt would snap - you seem to be implying that a waist belt wouldn't in the same circumstance. This is not the case, they're both dissipating the same amount of energy, so if one would snap so would the other. The reason a 3-point belt is more effective is that it completely restrains the torso (thus preventing overextension of the torso) and spreads the restraining force across a much larger area. A lap belt just restrains the hips, and the torso continues forward unchecked which damages the back. Think whiplash injuries in a car crash. If you're implying that any given belt would snap, even if it did it would at least dissipate some of the energy of the occupant, although if they were decellerated quickly enough to break a seat belt I suspect they would be unlikely to survive in any case.
Aside from the differences in belts, it's not clear to me what the differences in impact would be. The decellerations are significantly different. The impact a car experiences stops it from travelling in its forward direction (at least in terms of a car driving into another object), thus this is the direction the occupants continue to travel and this is the direction which the belt has to offer restraint. An aircraft is not subject to the same braking force, but has an additional downwards impact and any subsequent forward motion is going to further damage the aircraft (unlike a car, which rolls freely). Many air crashes show the aircraft continuing in the forward direction, but with initial ground impact and subsequent sliding/rolling etc. It is the friction between aircraft and ground (or water) that provides braking, and I suspect that (although not insignificant) the overall braking effect is less than in a head-on car accident. Please note I am referring to the decelleration experienced by an occupant, and that this assumes a crash land as opposed to a dive impact (which is, as I understand, invariably fatal).
Well, that was quite a dry post, my apologies. I'll try to make sure my next post is prefaced with a joke.
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
Lap belts are used in planes for one reason only - they're cheap.
Why would they give the pilots 4 point harnesses if a simple lap belt would suffice?
In a minor crash, the lap belt will stop you falling out of your seat as effectively as a car type seat belt. In a major crash, you're probably dead anyway. Besides which, the cost of installing / retrofitting specially made 3 point seat belts to a whole fleet of jets is way more than your life is worth to the airlines. Not to mention the fact that people would whinge incessantly about being constrained in such a restraint.
Ultimately though, it's all about economics. Airlines are insured, as long as they maintain the planes in accordance with regulations then they're not the ones who have to pay out millions to the families of the bereaved. Consequently, where's the incentive to fit better seat belts? They'd probably only save a handful of lives a year, on average.
Why would they give the pilots 4 point harnesses if a simple lap belt would suffice?
In a minor crash, the lap belt will stop you falling out of your seat as effectively as a car type seat belt. In a major crash, you're probably dead anyway. Besides which, the cost of installing / retrofitting specially made 3 point seat belts to a whole fleet of jets is way more than your life is worth to the airlines. Not to mention the fact that people would whinge incessantly about being constrained in such a restraint.
Ultimately though, it's all about economics. Airlines are insured, as long as they maintain the planes in accordance with regulations then they're not the ones who have to pay out millions to the families of the bereaved. Consequently, where's the incentive to fit better seat belts? They'd probably only save a handful of lives a year, on average.
Hollis said:Also from an insurance viewpoint, guaranteed death of all your passengers in the event of a crash, rather tha aload of permanently disabled but living people,hanging around for years, is going to be alot cheaper.
One wonders why they don't brief pilots to point the plane straight downwards at the first sign of trouble then, and get it over quickly.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Roadkill said:
There wouldn't have been a 9/11 if the pilots had used their wits. Well, less of a 9/11 anyway.
BlackSpecs
The DogFather
pseudonarcissus said:
Yup , thats why all the cabin crew sit that way when landing/taking off. Higer survival rate !!!!
Similar threads
- Poll
