The Survivor's Guide to Plane Crashes - BBC Horizon (MERGED)

[Pax Vobiscum]

Horizon returns to BBC2 on Tuesday (3rd Oct) at 21:00 with the above programme. At the risk of diverting the thread to JB, I have to say that for me Horizon has sunk from being the TV equivalent of Scientific American to the TV equivalent of The Sun, but maybe this will mark the start of an up-turn ...

[10secondsurvey]

I wonder if they'll touch on something which stopped for many years and has returned over recent years. This is the placing of rows of seats at overwing emergency exits.

This seating was advised (regulated?) against following the British Airtours disaster at Manchester airport. I believe, and others here who are more knowledgable can correct me, it was highlighted in an official report into the accident, where despite being on the ground, passengers could not evacuate the aircraft quickly enough.

It seemed to re-appear with the rise of 'budget' airlines, and mainline carriers following suit.

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to the full story on this type of seating.

As to surviving aircrashes, I remember being told (whilst very young and naive) that the best place is in the toilet - though I'm not sure why.

Sadly, I have to agree with the point by Pax Vobiscum about the downgrading of Horizon.

[Globaliser]

I wonder if they'll touch on something which stopped for many years and has returned over recent years. This is the placing of rows of seats at overwing emergency exits.I don't know what you mean by "stopped"? I don't think there was ever a time when seats were removed altogether from around overwing exits as a matter of generality. Quite a bit of work was done, though, to see what the spacing should be between seat rows was at the exits. IIRC, one of the results was that making the gap too wide actually slows down the flow of passengers; there is definitely an optimum between too wide and too narrow.

There was, though, a specific issue with the 747 Classic. Some operators blocked off doors 3 (overwing) on the main deck, and installed seating all the way from doors 2 to doors 4 (except for galleys and toilets etc, of course). This was because the original certification testing showed that the aircraft could be evacuated well within the required time using all doors, and modelling showed that the certification test could still be met even if doors 3were not used. Consequently, doors 3 could be permanently blocked and the aircraft would still satisfy the certification requirements.

The operators who did this did not do it with the 747-400. There was also a change in the certification requirements, but I don't know which came first. The change was that there is now a maximum permitted distance between two adjacent emergency exits, which prevents the existence of a long gap such as would occur between doors 2 and doors 4 on the 747 main deck. (However, the Classic arrangement was grandfathered.) IIRC, when the A340-600 was under development, Airbus asked for an exemption from this requirement to avoid having to put in another pair of exits (overwing, I think); they could demonstrate that the evacuation test could be completed without those exits. But the request was turned down, I suspect for the same reasons that the requirement was originally inserted, so those exits are now there.

[10secondsurvey]

Thanks for that info.

[CSilvera]

I thought over wing was the safest because the air frame is strongest there.

[the dean]

I thought over wing was the safest because the air frame is strongest there.


i'm sure you will find those for and against...

on the plus side..you are closest to the exit ( unless near a door )..

as against that you might be sitting over 50 tons of fuel..

still consider overwing safe..??:confused: :confused:

10secondsurvey..

it used to be said in my dads day the the rere was the safest place, and it probably was.
certainly as a child i recall many photographs of crashes that showed the tail still intact. that was in thoery because airplanes in flight never backed into anything..!!...but remember it was because we are talking about DC4s, 6s, 7s connies etc with speeds that were survivable.

now its a matter of chance...and numbers...i would say.

[computer jockey]

I always thought that the rear of the aircraft was the safest because you're usually the last to arrive at the scene of the accident... ;)

[gorgeous spotter]

Horizon returns to BBC2 on Tuesday (3rd Oct) at 21:00 with the above programme. At the risk of diverting the thread to JB, I have to say that for me Horizon has sunk from being the TV equivalent of Scientific American to the TV equivalent of The Sun, but maybe this will mark the start of an up-turn ...

Always watch National Geographic channel on SKY, Seconds From Disaster; that reports on past air disasters and near misses. Interesting the last few have been. Showed re-creation of the French Concorde disaster; was very graphic account. Also on same channel Air Crash Investigation; these are both good. Will watch out for Horizon though.

[high-hopes]

Always watch National Geographic channel on SKY, Seconds From Disaster; that reports on past air disasters and near misses. Interesting the last few have been. Showed re-creation of the French Concorde disaster; was very graphic account. Also on same channel Air Crash Investigation; these are both good. Will watch out for Horizon though.

you must be the only non-pilot female to watch Seconds from Disaster LOL :p

now... what about Air Crash Investigation ? I must have watched that poor BA Captain sucked out of the window at least 7 times LOL

[gorgeous spotter]

you must be the only non-pilot female to watch Seconds from Disaster LOL :p

now... what about Air Crash Investigation ? I must have watched that poor BA Captain sucked out of the window at least 7 times LOL

And your point is..........???!!:confused:

[high-hopes]

And your point is..........???!!:confused:

ehm... not making a point, just a silly comment LOL

please don't expect any meaningfulness from me !! :p

[gorgeous spotter]

You sound as daft as a brush,:} but harmless with it.:) :)

Gorgeous

[10secondsurvey]

The BBC have some 'top tips' here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5402342.stm

from tonight's (tuesday 3rd) programme on air crash survival.

[NavMonkey]

On tonight on BBC2:

Tuesday 3 October 2006, 9pm on BBC Two

Every day across the world, more than 3 million people catch a plane. Yet despite it being the safest form of travel, many of us are terrified of flying and what we fear most is crashing and dying.

Most people believe that if they're in a plane crash their time is up, in fact the truth is surprisingly different. Over 90% of plane crashes have survivors and there are many things you can do to increase your chances of staying alive.
We have spoken to aviation safety experts, crash investigators as well as plane crash survivors - and put together the 'ultimate survivors guide to plane crashes'.

[iskandra]

Anyway, could those who actually watch the programme post some critique afterwards? I can't; I don't get BBC in Germany.

I'm not called scaredy-cat for nothing...

[BahrainLad]

So far, it's the usual Horizon...the occasional good nugget of info from a knowledgable talking head interspersed with lots of archive photos of burning fuselages, crash dummies, nightime reconstructions with suitably ghoulish music etc.

What's more concerning is some of the more fundamental errors/deliberate ommissions - yes, UA232 was an 'engine failure' but much more than that, ditto the Eithiopian ditching 'ran out of fuel' but was much more than that etc. etc.

It seems to neglect what could be considered the main focus on airline safety (like terrorism): prevention over survivability.

[crew the screw]

Bahrainlad, I agree.. not too much good stuff yet. If this kind of programme has to be aired, why not be more detailed?

A bit more background on each 'disaster' would be helpful too.

IMHO fly with the RAF and sit facing backwards?

www.bbc.co.uk/horizon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon)

[Barnaby the Bear]

Its just finishing. I thought it was ok. Fairly lighthearted. Made some useful points and not too technical for the people who don't understand all the jargon.
:}
I heard that sitting backwards is the safest. I always do on the train, but alot of people don't like to.

[att]

It was a program aimed at PAX and how to survive an aircrash.
Nothing else was needed IMO.

It was all common sense anyways, but as we know, the general public lack common sense in most, if not all areas of their lives.

It did what it said on the tin.......Simple really.

[drichard]

Interestng, it explained some of the rationale - such as the dimming of cabin lights during landings at night so as to allow your eyes to adjust to outside light levels (just in case).

One thing struck me, at Oaklahoma city, the cabin was inverted and one of the survivors said she was looking for the emergency lighting at her feet (but it was above her so she couldn't see it). How about a single strip of emergency lighting in the ceiling to aid in this scenario. If just one life is saved, it'll be worthwhile.

There was little advice as to how to cope with swimming in jet-fuel (following a ditching), apart from trying not to swallow it, does anyone have any clues?

Air bags in seatbelts? This is a good idea in theory, but in practice I wonder about twisted belts (firing the bag into the passenger), explosives in the seat (to generate CO2 for filling the bags), false triggers etc etc etc.

One thing struck me at the end was the "everyman for himself" thought. If travelling in a group, agree to meet outside and not try to get out as one.

I loved the concept of counting seat rows, I will be doing that religeously from now on.

I'll leave the rest of the comments to the pro's

Dave

[Evening Star]

Just watched it. Am sure it is possible to be picky, but overall very positive. Bottom line is do as the cabin crew tell you in the safety briefing to increase the odds in your favour. But we all know that here did'nt we? Wonder how many of the ignorant plebs who ostentatiously read the newspaper during the briefing were watching?

[10secondsurvey]

Just watched this programme. Very dissapointing. No critical analysis of airline seating or safety policies. No discussion of survivability in low vs. high density seating. Horizon has gone down hill. They should change the name to 'science for thickies'.

In summary;

Know where your exit is

Know how to undo seat belt

read safety card

don't take a sleeping pill

Adopt Brace position

get off the plane ASAP.

Nothing new. Rubbish.

[10secondsurvey]

Drichard

The point highlighted about counting seat rows is a very good one. In the AAIB report into the Manchester Airoturs disaster, there are reports of pax unable to find the overwing exit, as the distance between the seat rows was very similar to the regular seat rows. Whilst blinded by smoke, the pax could not tell which row was the exit.

Good point earlier regarding the strip of lighting along the roof, in case of inversion.

[mrloop]

One omission that surprised me was that there was no mention of not trying to get luggage from the overhead bins - this has been cited as an evacuation delaying factor in several accident reports.

[Blues&twos]

Yep, predictable stuff. I agree counting seat rows is a simple but great idea! Slightly irritated by the dramatic music in the background the whole time, and not sure what additional information was brought by interviews with surviving pax. Strange that more time wasn't given to ditching in water - all they said was "don't inflate your lifejacket before you get out of the plane".

Like the idea of lights on the ceiling, but then if your commercial a/c ends up upside down, is anything likely to still be working!!??:uhoh:

[iskandra]

I know sitting backwards is a good idea, but how do you explain that to the attendants that you want one of their seats? :}

After my own experience in 1999 with an emergency landing of a plane full of smoke, I also diligently count the seat rows every time...just in case.

[eidah]

Air bags in seatbelts? This is a good idea in theory, but in practice I wonder about twisted belts (firing the bag into the passenger), explosives in the seat (to generate CO2 for filling the bags), false triggers etc etc etc.


My first impressions of airbags as a good idea but had similar thoughts, for example a heavy landing would one go off. Looked on the website and mentioned which airlines had them anyone on pprune fly for search airlines and has this happened to them

[outofsynch]

Good doco I thought. Educational for the average joe-pax. Especially the emphasis about the brace position. Might make one or two more pay attention to the demo.....!

Just not sure about the swimming in fuel being thick and dark... never seen jet a1 like that before.

[PilotsOfTheCaribbean]

A shame you thought it was rubbish.

The message wasn't trying to convey something "new", it was trying to point out why the same old stuff is so important and easily overlooked, and I suppose considered "rubbish" by the know it all merchants.

The repeated points about reverting back to a familiar action scenario in a high stress situation is so very true. The fact that in such circumstances people will often try to unfasten their seatbelt like they would in their car is a prime example.

The fact that the safety card will often contain different brace positions for different seating configurations. Why the brace position is so important.

Why not to inflate a lifejacket in a cabin even though it may be perceived as a basic airbag in certain circumstances.

I thought it was interesting and very valid as someone who flies every working day, but what do I know ?

It was a guide to survivability in the world as it is, not the world as it might be or isn't.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I half watched while bidding on eBay. It was quite well done, I thought. If it makes the PAX more aware of what can happen and what it looks like, it must be good value. I wonder how many of the regulars who read their papers during the safety brief have given much thought to how their seat belts really unfastens? I bet they would never panic.

For what it's worth, all the AVTUR I've ever seen on water has looked just like less rippley water. I know it stinks and makes your eyes water.

[gorgeous spotter]

Oh, Pilots of the Caribbean would you be a pilot then? and possibly working for BMI Baby? Saw their rather large garish billboard poster in Manchester on Saturday, promising 007 types to fly you to warmer climes!!:} :)

[sinala1]

Air bags in seatbelts? This is a good idea in theory, but in practice I wonder about twisted belts (firing the bag into the passenger), explosives in the seat (to generate CO2 for filling the bags), false triggers etc etc etc.

Virgin Atlantic have airbags in all Upper Class Suite seats... also, on the A340-600, they have them in economy in all seats where headstrike with a bulkhead or slide bustle is a possibility.

My understanding, and I am open to correction on this, is that any new aircraft type certified after the early nineties (1994 possibly? :confused: ) is required to have airbags on all seats where headstrike is a possibility (as it is in the Upper Class Suite on VS)

[The late XV105]

FWIW, Horizon's list of a/c with airbags fitted: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/survivorsguide/airbags/

Surprised to see no mention of a brace position technique I heard a Talking Head commend in a previous (Horizon?) documentary; ensure that your ankles are vertically slightly behind your knees. This ensures that the legs can still take vertical compression without early breakage to them or joints whilst being prevented by the floor from swinging violently forwards in the event of sudden deceleration.

[10secondsurvey]

A great deal of attention in the programme was on the brace position, yet no mention of the impossibility of adopting this in modern high density seat layouts.

No mention either of the ICE report from loughborough a few years ago, looking into pax trapped in rows too closely packed together.

The reason I said it was rubbish, was in light of the original posters point regarding the reduction of standards in "Horizon' itself. Previously, it was a very high level scientific programme, that would analyse published scientific evidence, and present facts in relation to scientific understanding. Judging by last nights programme, and the trailer for next week, it has been 'dumbed down'. There was absolutely no real in-depth criticism or analysis at all.

[strake]

Air crash survival seems to require you to experience very, very bad luck followed equally quickly by very,very good luck......

[Pax Vobiscum]

FWIW I thought it was a well-made prog for the general public. I wouldn't expect that many of the frequent flyers who frequent this area of PPRuNe would have gained much new info from it.

My gripe with the BeeB is that Horizon used to be aimed at people with an interest in science, those that read Scientific American or New Scientist - it now seems to be assuming 'no prior knowledge'. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but I feel there ought to be room for at least one prog that could go into subjects in a bit more depth (like The Sky at Night does for astronomy).

If I could be allowed a bit of a quibble, the prog stressed several times that "90% of air accidents have survivors". This seems unlikely to me, unless they're including in these statistics all non-fatal accidents as well as those where there were fatalities. Events that result in loss of control at high speed or high altitude are not generally survivable, no matter how few rows you are from an emergency exit! (Sorry to be so gloomy, I'll go away and try to cheer up ...)

[jetset lady]

Air crash survival seems to require you to experience very, very bad luck followed equally quickly by very,very good luck......

That's probably 90% of it but you can help that luck along by watching the safety briefing and all the other tips on this thread. Hate to harp on about it but can't remember the number of times I've had to stop a demo to shut someone up, let alone those that are reading papers. We aren't standing there for our own amusement! Unfortunately, those idiots aren't the type of people that will watch programmes like that but they are the ones that'll hamper an evacuation! :ugh:

[iskandra]

@jetset lady: I not only listen to and watch the demonstrations...I also check the instructions on how to operate the emergency exits - and I've been known to ask if I can't quite understand how they work from the pictures...but some flight attendants tend to watch me closely afterwards.... :hmm:

[Tarq57]

Personal rules (always open to be broken of course)
-Choose an airline that has the lowest density seating possible. Mainly for comfort, but also improves the chances of getting out/seating not breaking away from the mounts.(provided we're not talking DodgyAir.com)
-Never wear synthetics.Wear long sleeves/pants at least during dep/arr.
-Always read the safety card and be attentive during the briefing. Quite apart from maybe needing to know the contents, if that attentiveness influences 1 other passenger to do the same, that's helped improve my survivability.(This one doesn't get broken)
-Sit in the most comfortable location. Adjacent an overwing exit is good. If the fuel goes up, that's likely to affect almost everybody on board anyway.
-Don't carry duty free (or any) spirits in the overheads. Or anywhere.(This one doesn't get broken). I can't believe it's legal to do this.:*
-Don't swim in jet fuel. If I have to swim in jet fuel, common sense rules made up on the spot apply.
I recently had the good fortune to travel in a lie flat seat with airbag built into the belt. Quite a bulky little pouch about 30cm long near the catch. Always wondered what would happen it it went off, but not for long...the food was too nice.:)

[jetset lady]

@jetset lady: I not only listen to and watch the demonstrations...I also check the instructions on how to operate the emergency exits - and I've been known to ask if I can't quite understand how they work from the pictures...but some flight attendants tend to watch me closely afterwards.... :hmm:

It's nice to know that some (hopefully most!) out there pay attention and most crew I know are happy to answer questions from passengers on safety so keep on asking. You're welcome on one of my flights anyday and I promise not to watch you too closely!! :D :)

[PAXboy]

10secondsurveyThere was absolutely no real in-depth criticism or analysis at all.
I agree. Horizon has been steadily dumbed down to be a quasi scientific prog but following trends not finding new ones.

IF they had made this part One and part Two was "Safety developments that might be used .." and then talk about the pros and cons of water mist systems, carrying duty free, the realism of emergency exit tests for certification, the use of smoke hoods and so on, then we might have a programme to watch.

strakeAir crash survival seems to require you to experience very, very bad luck followed equally quickly by very,very good luck ......
Exactly so. My father said that, through 4.5 years in the RAF in WWII, it was luck that played the greatest part in whether they shot down the other one, or were shot down.
I know that, if I have to make an emergency exit from an airliner the variables are too numerous to mention but start with (in no order):
Who is sitting next to me (both sides) and in front/behind
Which row I am in
Upper/Lower deck
F/J/Y
Which airline I am on
The speed/angle of approach etc
On a runway/water/or just whatever happens to be available
Daylight/Nightime
Time of passengers 'day', how awake/drunk are we
What have other people (and me) put in the lockers above my head
Start/End of journey (fuel on board)
Smoke in the cabin

[strake]

Trip to Cologne with Lufthansa last week. " This is the seatbelt, this is oxygen, here are the exits, these are the floor lights and here is the safety card." 30 seconds..perfect.

Maybe if Virgin and BA did their briefings like this instead of videos and interminably long "I am" PA's from Cabin Service Directors/Supervisors, people might pay a bit more attention.
Despite what CC are told during training, the majority of passengers are intelligent, successful people who are quite capable of dealing with emergencies and are well aware of the statistics about modern flying...ie nothing is going to happem.

[iskandra]

It's nice to know that some (hopefully most!) out there pay attention and most crew I know are happy to answer questions from passengers on safety so keep on asking. You're welcome on one of my flights anyday and I promise not to watch you too closely!! :D :)

Awww...thank you! Which airline do you fly with? :ok:

@PAXboy: Smoke in the cabin was the one thing I've had personal experience with. I can tell you it s***s - you don't want to let go of the oxygen masks to get out... :yuk: