How to survive a plane crash

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...ane-crash.html

By Tim Jepson
Last Updated: 12:06PM GMT 16 Jan 2009
Passengers stand on the wings of a U.S. Airways plane as a ferry pulls
up to it after it landed in the Hudson River in New York, January 15,
2009 Photo: REUTERS

How to survive a plane crash? Well, you can be lucky, like the 155
passengers and crew of American Airlines' Flight 1549, the plane that
crash-landed on New York's Hudson River yesterday, and enjoy a
combination of luck, superlative flying and excellent staff training.
Or you can take matters into your own hands.

Planes have always crashed. The first fatal accident occurred in 1908,
just five years after the Wright brothers completed the earliest
controlled, sustained and heavier-than-air flight. The pilot of the
plane involved in the crash, in which one passenger died? Orville
Wright himself.

But there are crashes and crashes. Some, patently, cannot be survived.
Others, however – the vast majority, in fact – can be. A US government
study found there were 568 plane crashes in the US between 1993 and
2000, involving a total of 53,487 passengers and crew. Of these,
51,207 – or over 90 per cent survived. Even on the 26 crashes deemed
the worst, the study found that more than half the passengers and crew
survived.

Contrary to popular statistical myth, however, air travel is not the
safest form of transport – rail travel is safer in terms of accidents
per journey and accidents per hour travelled (air travel wins only in
accidents per mile travelled). But what is true, contrary to
expectation, as the study reveals, is the survivability of most
crashes. More to the point, the study found that a third of those who
died – smoke and fire accounted for most deaths – would almost
certainly have survived if they'd taken certain precautions.

So what are these precautions? Well, as you'd imagine, it's an
imprecise science, heavy with claim and counter-claim, with some
precautions rendered useless in certain crashes. But there are areas
on which all agree. Here is a checklist that might just save your
life.
HAVE A PLAN

This is the key. Time and again, having a notion of what you are going
to do in the event of a crash or forced landing has been found to be
fundamental to survival. First, really do listen to the safety
announcement and read the safety card, and if you don't, then at the
very least know exactly where to find the nearest exits. Actually
count the number of rows from your seat to exits in front and behind
you – the chances are you might be trying to find your way to an exit
in pitch dark and/or thick smoke.

Bear in mind that – unforuntately – you may have several minutes'
warning before impact, so use the time to go through any plan again.
THE SAFEST SEATS

Exits seats, usually, though when it comes to crashes, there's more
anecdotal, fanciful and other information regarding the safest seats
on a plane than almost any other. Boeing's website says that "one seat
is as safe as another", as do www.airsafe.com and the United States'
Federal Aviation Adminstration, among others.

Popular opinion, however, has it that rear seats are safer, though
there's a vocal online minority that claims over-wing seats are best,
because the plane is "stronger" at that point.

Crashes vary, and sometimes the only people to survive are those at
the front; in other crashes survivors are over the wing. But in 2007,
Popular Mechanics magazine looked at all crashes since 1971 for which
seat survival data was available and found that those in rear seats
(behind the wing's trailing edge) were indeed safer – survival rates
were 69 per cent as opposed to 56 per cent over the wing and 49 per
cent for those at the front of the plane.
BRACE

Like the safest seats, this is a contentious area. Internet conspiracy
theorists claim the recommended brace positions (which themselves have
varied over the years) are those guaranteed to break your neck and
back most successfully – a deliberate ploy, they claim, to make your
death quick and painless as possible and reduce insurance costs.

Others – less ludicrously – point out that one of the two recommended
brace positions is impossible for anyone in economy seat, where the
space in front of you is simply insufficient to adopt the suggested
position. It's worth noting that some think the recommended brace
positions don't make much sense, and that you should sit up straight
and push against the seat in front of you.

In any event, you are trying to do three basic things by bracing. Get
your torso as low as possible to reduce the jacknife effect at impact;
stop yourself from flying forward and hitting the seat or other parts
of the aircraft interior; and preventing injury to your legs and
ankles that will hinder your escape from the aircraft.
PROTECTION

The last is pertinent: after the M1 Kegworth crash of 1989 (when 79 of
the 126 people on board survived), many victims and survivors were
found to have legs broken below the knee, the result of their legs
flying into, or being forced against the seat structure in front of
them.

Therefore hold your legs and/or place feet flat on the floor,
preferably farther back than your knees, and place hand luggage under
the seat in front of you to act as a cushion or check.

If you can, add additional protection for your head – a pillow, say.
Be sure that you have removed any dentures, pencils or other sharp
objects from around your person. Also be sure to hold the brace
position until the plane has come to a standstill – often there will
be additional impacts after the initial one.
SEATBELTS

One of the strangest findings of research into crashes and passenger
behaviour is that over and over again people struggled with what you'd
imagine would be the easiest of tasks – undoing their seatbelts. The
reason is that in times of stress people revert to learned, normal
behaviour and when it comes to seatbelts normal and instinctive means
a car seatbelt. Following a crash, investigators found that many
people scrabbled around to find the push-button release on their
belts, as this is the release with which they were most familiar.
Aircraft seatbelts unbuckle.

As for the belt itself, pull it as tight as possible. For every inch
of slack you are increasing the potential G-forces to which you'll be
subjected.
NEGATIVE PANIC

After a crash, speed is of the essence, as is calm. But a frequent
stress reaction is what is known as "negative panic", whereby people
remain seated and immobile, as if in a trance, stunned by events. The
same can apply to aircraft crew, who, despite their rigorous training,
may also be stunned and fail to react.

One of the keys to survival can be to listen to, and follow crews'
instructions, but if they or your immediate neighbours appear to be in
a trance, then you have to make your own moves and decisions. In a
similar vein, stunned passengers have often found to have remained
seated waiting for instructions that, for whatever reason, didn't
come. Move.
SMOKE INHALATION

Fire is a main cause of death in most survivable crashes, but smoke is
worse. Even a few breaths that draw in smoke can result in loss of
consciousness. If possible wet a hankerchief, or other peice of
material – the seatback headrest, for example – to cover your nose and
mouth. If no water is available, use urine. This is a matter of life
and death – it's no time to be fastidious.
LOW TO THE GROUND?

In a smoke-filled plane, some sources suggest you keep low to the
floor as there's likely to be less smoke at floor level. Wrong. The
chances are you'll simply be trampled, crushed or suffocated under
luggage, falling bodies and the rush of other passengers. Keep your
head down, mouth and nose covered but stay on two feet. Climb over
seat backs if gangways are blocked.
HANDS-FREE

People do the most remarkable things after crashes, one of the
strangest of which is trying to retrieve some, or all of their
possessions. For goodness' sake – leave them. You don't have time, the
possessions will slow you (and others) down, and you will need both
hands free, whether it's to remove obstacles, hold a pad over your
nose and mouth or fight off the flailing fists of others.

This said, don't push (you want get through any faster) or lash out
yourself – you'll slow everything and everyone down and invite
retaliation: and in a stressful fight-and-flight situation such as a
crash, people find extraordinary strength – you could be knocked out
or otherwise injured.
MOVE FAST

The "golden period" for escape lasts only up to about two minutes.
Listen to flight attendants, get to an exit fast, check quickly that
it is viable, inside and out, then get out and move as far from the
plane as fast as possible. And whether you stop to help others? Well,
that is up to you, and to the reserves of courage and fellow feeling
you may or not have. Who knows what we will do in extremis?

In article
,
Runge enjoys crossdressing wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...ane-crash.html
:
:
Planes have always crashed. The first fatal accident occurred in 1908,
just five years after the Wright brothers completed the earliest
controlled, sustained and heavier-than-air flight. ...

Lilienthal? Icarus??

Sam

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:23:33 -0800 (PST), Runge enjoys crossdressing
wrote:


Planes have always crashed. The first fatal accident occurred in 1908,
just five years after the Wright brothers completed the earliest
controlled, sustained and heavier-than-air flight. The pilot of the
plane involved in the crash, in which one passenger died? Orville
Wright himself.

Actually it was Wilbur. Orvill died just after WW2.

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:23:33 -0800 (PST), Runge enjoys crossdressing
wrote:


Planes have always crashed. The first fatal accident occurred in
1908, just five years after the Wright brothers completed the
earliest controlled, sustained and heavier-than-air flight. The
pilot of the plane involved in the crash, in which one passenger
died? Orville Wright himself.

Actually it was Wilbur. Orvill died just after WW2.

I think Christopher was right about which Wright was the pilot in the
1908 crash: see http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Selfridge.htm

Orville was injured, but survived, unlike the unfortunate passenger, Lt.
Thomas Selfridge.

On 16 Jan, 12:23, Runge enjoys crossdressing
wrote:
Contrary to popular statistical myth, however, air travel is not the
safest form of transport – rail travel is safer in terms of accidents
per journey and accidents per hour travelled (air travel wins only in
accidents per mile travelled).

So for a journey from London to Glasgow, air travel is safer than
train?

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message

On 16 Jan, 12:23, Runge enjoys crossdressing
wrote:
Contrary to popular statistical myth, however, air travel is not the
safest form of transport – rail travel is safer in terms of accidents
per journey and accidents per hour travelled (air travel wins only in
accidents per mile travelled).

So for a journey from London to Glasgow, air travel is safer than
train?

I would have thought so, and not just statistically. There have been
several fatal rail accidents on the west and east coast main lines to
Glasgow in recent years, but I can't think when the last fatal accident
occurred on a British airliner in Britain (eg, the British Midland
Kegworth crash). It was certainly many years earlier. Of course, I'm
excluding private flying, and in particular the recent crash on to the
west coast mainline.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:43:05 -0800 (PST), Paul Weaver
wrote:

On 16 Jan, 12:23, Runge enjoys crossdressing
wrote:
Contrary to popular statistical myth, however, air travel is not the
safest form of transport – rail travel is safer in terms of accidents
per journey and accidents per hour travelled (air travel wins only in
accidents per mile travelled).

So for a journey from London to Glasgow, air travel is safer than
train?

No. But then again, if you live by Gatwick or Heathrow and want to meet
someone in Glasgow airport, quite possibly.

DaveM

On 16/1/09 12:23, in article
, "Runge
enjoys crossdressing" wrote:

Contrary to popular statistical myth, however, air travel is not the
safest form of transport * rail travel is safer in terms of accidents
per journey and accidents per hour travelled (air travel wins only in
accidents per mile travelled).

But since the aim of travel is to get from one place to another, i.e. To
travel a certain distance, that is the thing that matters. People don't
generally decide that they want to make, say, a four hour journey, and then
look to see where they can go in that time, so accidents per hour travelled
is pretty meaningless. If a means of transport was doubled in speed, so
that the journey only took half as long, but the number of accidents
remained the same, would it be reasonable to say that it was twice as
dangerous? Since air travel is generally used for longer journeys than
rail, comparing accidents per journey isn't terribly meaningful either.

If air travel has less accidents per mile than rail travel, then it's
probably reasonable to say that it's safer, though you might also need to
consider how severe the accidents were.

The fact is, of course, that both are very safe, and the chances of coming
to any harm in an accident when travelling by either are very small. If I
was trying to decide whether to make a journey by rail or by air, safety
isn't something I would consider, and I wouldn't worry about it, as I don't
worry about being struck by lightening, which is probably about equally
(un)likely.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:29:35 +0000, Stephen Furley
wrote:

Since air travel is generally used for longer journeys than
rail, comparing accidents per journey isn't terribly meaningful either.

If air travel has less accidents per mile than rail travel, then it's
probably reasonable to say that it's safer, though you might also need to
consider how severe the accidents were.

Air accidents cluster around takeoff and landing, so short haul and longhaul
flights aren't dissimilar in risk. That makes "per journey" stats a better
assessment of risk for air travel. There's another reason why you might
prefer not to use to "mortality per mile" as the gold standard: Consider a
manned flight to Mars, @ 286 million miles round trip. If every 10th trip is
lost with 100% mortality, giving a 1 in 2860 million person-miles mortality,
would it really be true to say space flight was safer than flying (1 in
2,000 million person-miles)?

DaveM

In message , at 00:29:35 on Sat, 17
Jan 2009, Stephen Furley remarked:
Since air travel is generally used for longer journeys than
rail, comparing accidents per journey isn't terribly meaningful either.

The majority of air accidents happen on takeoff or landing (and the
length of flight in between is pretty irrelevant), whereas not many
train accidents take place in stations rather than en-route, so distance
matters a lot.

So comparisons are difficult!
--
Roland Perry