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

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 ...

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.

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.

Thanks for that info.

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.

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... ;)

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

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

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

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

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

Gorgeous

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.

Horizon 03/10: Survivors guide to plane crashes
 

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'.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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