
Discovery Channel's Inside a Jet Crash - twakefield
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2012/10/01/inside-a-doomed-jetliner-tv-show-stages-727-crash/1606749/
======
btilly
Interesting article. For me the two most surprising takeaways were that most
people survive an accident, and the other was how cheap the plane was.

They paid $400,000 for the plane. By comparison they paid $150,000 each for
each of 3 test dummies in the plane. The test dummies cost more than the
plane!

~~~
ChuckMcM
It is a little known fact that fully depreciated planes (like the 727 in the
example) _are_ cheap, its operating them that is expensive. Adding up the
costs of mandatory maintenance, repairs, upgrades, consumables (gas, tires,
hydraulic fluid, etc). That is what bites you.

And the 'most people survive' is something of a misnomer. Start trolling
through <http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports_aviation.html> and you
will see that accidents you would expect to be modestly survivable (low
altitude takeoff and landing issues) are, and ones like the Air France jet
falling out of the sky over the Atlantic are not.

~~~
ubernostrum
_And the 'most people survive' is something of a misnomer._

So, if we consider only the accidents that are least likely to be survivable
(which are a tiny percentage of all accidents), we find that they're not
likely to be survivable?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Well, you could pull out two accidents out of the list where everyone died and
say "most people die in plane crashes", which would be incorrect as well.
Hence the term misnomer :-) As an engineer I would be inclined to say "if you
find yourself in a survivable crash, the following things help increase your
odds, ..." which keeps the cool bits about back of the plane vs first class,
exits vs non-exits, but side-steps the probability question of surviving a
gross malfunction in a commercial jet.

------
js2
The article references the Sioux City Crash, aka United Flight 232. If you've
never read it, this speech by that flight's captain (Al Haynes) is
spellbinding:

<http://www.clear-prop.org/aviation/haynes.html>

~~~
themckman
Sioux City: United 232 heavy, winds currently 360 at 11, three sixty at
eleven, you're cleared to land on any runway.

UAL 232: You want to be particular and make it a runway, huh?

\------

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l4pywdqvK4&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l4pywdqvK4&feature=related)

In that video, you hear the captain actually laughs before asking the traffic
controller to be particular. Its absurd these guys can stay as calm as they do
in these situations.

~~~
js2
_Its absurd these guys can stay as calm as they do in these situations._

Hayes credits the radar controller for helping with that: "If you have a
serious problem like we did, and you need the kind of help that does not add
to the tension level, a voice like Bauchman's, as calm and as steady as he
was, certainly was an influence on us and helped us remain composed." [1]

Another fun factoid: "Subsequent simulator tests showed that other DC-10 crews
were unable to repeat the effort of the crew of 232." [2]

[1] <http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/ua232.shtml>

[2] <http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua232.shtml>

------
nostromo
Interesting that they seem to be confirming previous analysis that shows that
the rear of the plane is indeed the safest part of the plane.

> flying in first class would have been fatal. Passengers in the middle of the
> cabin might have suffered concussions and broken ankles, while those in the
> rear could have walked away

which agrees with this analysis
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/4...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/4219452)
which says

> the trend was clear: The rear cabin (seats located behind the trailing edge
> of the wing) had the highest average survival rate at 69 percent. The
> overwing section had a 56 percent survival rate, as did the coach section
> ahead of the wing. First/business-class sections (or in all-coach planes,
> the front 15 percent) had an average survival rate of just 49 percent.

~~~
ubernostrum
Except that article you link does a terrible job of presenting this. They look
only at a small sample (20 accidents), made up only of accidents which had
both fatalities and survivors.

When what you want for a real risk assessment is to consider first the
accident rate among commercial flights, then the percentage of accidents which
have fatalities (and also the rate at which those accidents have any
survivors).

------
chmars
Please link to the single page version:

[http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1606749?preferredArticleV...](http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1606749?preferredArticleViewMode=single)

------
weaksauce
> The plane was going 140 mph at impact, which is close to regular landing
> speed. But the 727 was descending at 1,500 feet per minute, much faster than
> the 10 to 20 feet per minute of a typical airliner landing.

I have to imagine that they were thinking seconds instead of minutes. coming
down from 35k feet would take quite a long time if that was not the case.
(20'/min would take ~30 hours)

~~~
chmars
For a standard 3-degree ILS approach, the descent rate is 318 ft per nautical
mile. With a ground speed of 150 knots, that would be about 750 ft/minute. At
higher altitudes and before the ILS, descent rates are usually higher,
sometimes up to 3'000 or 4'000 ft with a default rate of 1'500 ft per minute.

------
captaintacos
Who would've thought. Ironically, flying economy might someday save your life
(if Economy Class Syndrome doesn't kill your first that is).

------
omgsean
Great, now if I ever get to fly first class I won't be able to enjoy it.

------
jser
Glad to see the advertising dollars from Honey Boo Boo went towards something
useful!

------
sek
The Nissan advertising before the crash video was funny.

