Channel 4 Thursday at 9pm

[A4]

"The Plane Crash"

- An international team of scientists, experts, and elite pilots deliberately crash land a 170 seat Boeing 727 passenger jet to study the mechanics of a plane crash in real time.

Well it's an hour and half long..... Not sure how they'll stretch that out.

[hetfield]

That one?


Boeing 727 Airplane Crashes Into Sonoran Desert - YouTube

[A4]

I've no idea if that's the one.

Hey mods. Don't you think this may be more appropriate in Tech Log rather than spotters? Probably more "drivers" there who would be interested?

A4

[SpringHeeledJack]

That's the one, though this was just a guy filming from a distance earlier in the year. Coincidentally a friend was asked to work on the film but due to previous commitments had to decline. It must have been interesting for the (film) crew and for the pilot doing a 'Cooper' to leave the plane.


SHJ

[L4key]

What I'll be interested in is seeing what dynamics and variables are used for the crash.

From the ads it looks like a glide, so maybe a power failure. If it's a glide landing then I reckon a pilot at the controls is likely to do a far better job than a chap with a remote control surely as they would not be able to 'feel' the aircraft.

I could be completely wrong about the above but either way, how many crashes are the same? What can you learn other than a 727 at x ft/min, x knts, onto x surface will do 'this'. Hardly useful, especially seeing as there are bugger all 727's likely to be carrying 270 passengers these days.

Sounds like an excuse for C4 to do something wacky as usual. Hope I'm wrong, I'll certainly be watching!

[PositiveClimbGearUp]

On the Channel 4 website you have the option to 'check in' for the flight and choose a seat - then your fate is emailed to you after the crash!

[180backtrack]

This isn't the groundbreaking idea that C4 make out. A remote controlled Boeing 720 was crashed into a desert many years ago. I seem to remember that the main idea was to prove that a certain type of fuel wouldn't cause a fireball in a crash. The plane duly smacked into the desert and a fireball did erupt so I guess it was back to the drawing board. Fun to watch, though.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

That's a credit to P and W JT8Ds! Still running!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

This isn't the groundbreaking idea that C4 make out. A remote controlled Boeing 720 was crashed into a desert many years ago. I seem to remember that the main idea was to prove that a certain type of fuel wouldn't cause a fireball in a crash. The plane duly smacked into the desert and a fireball did erupt so I guess it was back to the drawing board. Fun to watch, though.

That's cos they mucked that one up.

[PAXboy]

I recall this being discussed in here before - perhaps it was during the making. If memory serves: Film company want to make a 'scientific' test and gather money. My view was that they just wanted a sellable film to make money but then, I was born cynical. :rolleyes:

[Smudger]

I'm amazed that some of you have managed to reduce a genuine attempt to gather data that may be of interest to flight safety, with particular regard to passenger safety, to a circus sideshow .. don't forget that seasoned aviators put their lives at risk to achieve it... well that's the PPrune clientele these days for you.. come on people.. give this experiment the respect it deserves... (standing by for the torrent of abuse I received the last time I expressed an opinion on here)

[munster]

Well said smudger:ok:

I was OK anyway. I was sat in the FDR.

[aviate1138]

Point is what fresh, relevant data did they gain? A very old 727 with old seats, a flat sandy crash area, loads of drama from jumpers but really it was more TV rubbernecking than airborne crash test dummying, wasn't it? The whole construction of the programme was filled with drama similar to the Eddie Stobart Truck 'crisis' mind numbingly dull series.
I really don't see how this crash will affect our future safety on modern jet travel.

Dammit the overhead locker and cargo hold comments are not relevant to present day aircraft or even more future versions.

I think Flight Safety was co-incidental to the TV Production 'Docudrama' format.

I share PAXboy's cynicism.

Sorry Smudger........

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Anyone with minimal knowledge of radio communication would know that the radio control box they used would be seriously hampered by being inside a cockpit. I simply cannot believe that they had not considered fixing a simple external aerial to the outside of the cockpit which would have greatly increased the range. It was like a bunch of kids playing with a very expensive toy.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

I'm amazed that some of you have managed to reduce a genuine attempt to gather data that may be of interest to flight safety, with particular regard to passenger safety, to a circus sideshow .. don't forget that seasoned aviators put their lives at risk to achieve it... well that's the PPrune clientele these days for you.. come on people.. give this experiment the respect it deserves... (standing by for the torrent of abuse I received the last time I expressed an opinion on here)


Smudger, the results appear very similar to the TK 738 just short of AMS. It stalled, probably had close to the same VS on impact, with the same result. All the data was there to be collected, minus g loading data for various parts of the aircraft cabin. Did that warrant a circus show? It doesn't really matter, when an aircraft is built, the design team have no real idea how it will crash. All we learnt is that it's pot luck as to how the aircraft lands when you have all the flight deck bail, and two overgrown boys enter the record books for flying the largest remote controlled plane, and that should the flight deck detach on a 727, the engines will continue to operate, despite sucking up a ton of desert dust.
Sorry, but it just appears to be an expensive TV stunt that demonstrated the importance of the brace position, and the range limitation of a remote controlled plane.

[SpringHeeledJack]

I would have to say that the documentary surpassed my expectations and didn't seem to be like so many of the sensationalist aviation offerings. I think anyone who was expecting a VERY serious in-depth scientific study was kidding themselves. Channel 4 and the production company that financed it needed it to have interest, suspense, drama, action and a conclusion to be able to sell it to the UK market and thereafter all over the world, and they will sell it for a pretty penny I'm sure. As always there was hundreds of hours of footage 'cut' in editing that might have given a completely different slant on things.

The points that bothered me were....the radio control unit only being able to function from less than 50m, the chase plane situation not nailed down before the experiment, rather than being discovered in-situ, and that the baggage hold was not loaded with at least a few containers or loads of suitcases to see what would have happened, as it's not as if they couldn't have filled them with all that sand surrounding the crash site ? Easy to judge from the sidelines and after the event, but if you're going to invest £3million in a project such as this you need to cover all bases.



SHJ

[PAXboy]

Test crash data on cars is always speculative. They crash them in 'typical' ways and draw overall conclusions. But, every day, people crash cars in new and inventive ways.

I have heard Police and medics be astounded such as: "No idea how he survived that crash, everything's a total write off." and "I can't see how she died, minimal impact and everyone else walked out of it."

With aircraft, you magnify that more times than can be quantified. Surviving an impact is largely down to luck if the a/c:


nose first
tail first
flat down with almost no forward speed
fuel situation
fire on board before impact?
smooth surface
rocky surface
fuselage stay intact
etcetera

This film was just a way to make money and all credit to them for that but not for anything else.

[Doors to Automatic]

For me the shocking outcome of this show was indirect. I researched the AAIB report into the Manchester crash following its mention on the show and was shocked at how quickly the fire spread, even though fire vehicles were on the scene within seconds of the aircraft stopping. I hadn't realised both of these facts before.

Even more shocking was the fact that had at plane been stopped quickly on the runway and turned such that the fire was downwind of the cabin, then everyone would have got out alive. It is absolutely sickening.

[Guest 112233]

Please see my twopence worth on this, plus others on this in the JB thread. I had an even bigger "pause for thought" on the choice of chase plane.

CAT III

[cambox]

Anyone who has spent a late shift working on a JT8 wouldn't have been suprised at the fact that they can eat a couple of tons of sand and still keep running. I bet the number two was surging like they always do but was good to see life still in the old ship. Enjoyed my time on 727's and it was criminal to see one die in this way. At least it was entertainment rather than just the scrap axe! I'm sure everybody learned something from the program even if it was don't waste your money on an experiment of this size. Interesting that the aircraft wasn't on its US registration when it hit the floor. Guess the Feds would have none of that nonsense.