

Plane crash TV: Channel 4 to destroy passenger jet - fun2have
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/12/plane-crash-tv-channel-4

======
ax0n
I have to wonder how badly it would suck to bail from an airliner going 120+
knots. That's about the slowest most heavies can go without falling out of the
sky.

~~~
cameldrv
Probably not too bad. They'll put it on autopilot and go out the back door.
It's routine for paratroopers.

------
iuguy
Wow, I've heard of car crash television, but never plane crash television.
Things must be getting desperate now that Big Bother's finished.

------
jacquesm
The report on the crash that prompted this TV program:

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/12/heathrow_777_update/>

Crashing a functioning airliner on purpose seems kind of wasteful, I hope
something that industry can use will come out of this.

~~~
ars
They never said it was a functioning airliner.

Airplanes have a finite lifespan, specifically the total lifetime number of
pressurizations <http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/NEED-lifecycles.html>
so they could easily take one of those and give it a final flight.

~~~
jacquesm
Thank you that was an interesting read.

I realized that pressurization cycles stress the materials but didn't clue in
that that puts a hard upper limit on the number of flights a body can make.

------
motters
Sounds like channel 4 are getting pretty desperate for viewers.

------
ashishbharthi
I dont agree that Boeing or Air but never did this.

~~~
ashishbharthi
[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/200384...](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003849110_boeingtest23.html)

------
sown
There was a similar effort in the US in the summer of 2001.

We all know now what happens when a plane crashes.

~~~
sown
I'm talking about some producer at Fox who wanted to do the same thing. The
FAA said no and then 9/11 happened. And it was 1999, not 2001, my mistake.

