Safest Seat on a Plane, Or How to Survive a Crash

Ant writes "Popular Mechanics shares a short article on an exclusive look at 36 years' worth of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports and seating charts to determine the best way to live through a disaster in the sky. Move to the back of the Airbus."

It's safer in the back and...

[Anonymous Coward]

you're by the bathrooms and you can watch any hottie walk back to her seat.

Re:

[I'll Provide The War]

Have you been to America lately? The only thing you would be watching here is a BBW walking sideways just to fit down the aisle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2007/07/19/wfat119.xml [telegraph.co.uk]

This is absurd to concern oneself with anyway since the death rate for commercial air travel is around 0.14 per billion miles. The death rate for automobile travel is 11,350% higher.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2001/ar01f.htm l [dallasfed.org]

Re:

[Climate Shill]

This is absurd to concern oneself with anyway since the death rate for commercial air travel is around 0.14 per billion miles. The death rate for automobile travel is 11,350% higher.

If I die, the fact that I've travelled a large distance in the process will hardly be much of a consolation.

Replacing deaths/mile by deaths/hour gives figures far less different.

Re:It's safer in the back and...

[Dun Malg]

Replacing deaths/mile by deaths/hour gives figures far less different.

.87 deaths per billion passenger-miles for airplane vs 11.7 for automobile. Still more than an order of magnitude greater, and people normally cover far more miles by car than by air in their lives.

But even at that, statistics are largely irrelevant on an individual scale. Statistically, you can say that every time someone flies on a plane, they lose 15 minutes off their life. This is, however, only true in the aggregate, as the loss is not spread across all passengers, but rather concentrated in those rare instances when 150 people lose an average of 30-odd years each all at once because they died in a plane crash.

/If/ you die?

[ishmaelflood]

I've got some bad news for you, unless you are a bacterium. It is WHEN you die, not IF.

Re:

[hobo sapiens]

If you are ever in a plane and a crash is imminent, the best position for you is this: put your head between your knees, hold tight...and kiss your ass goodbye.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:It's safer in the back and...

[ruiner13]

you're by the bathrooms and you can watch any hottie walk back to her seat.

Yeah, and you can also smell the ripe dookie she just dropped in the can as she saunters on down the aisle.

Re:It's safer in the back and...

[Sponge Bath]

During the crash you will be covered with turds and blue water before being incinerated with jet fuel. Which is about as dignified as the rest of air travel these days.

Re:It's safer in the back and...

[kharchenko]

here's [ninjapants.org] an obligatory feedback on the seat you're suggesting :)

Re:

[ari_j]

Is there still anywhere in the world where commercial airline flights are not non-smoking by law?

If there's one bit of mysticism I believe..

[QuantumG]

it's that if your time has come there's nothing you can do.

Which is good, cause it fits in nicely with a bit of wisdom that a lot of people should take to heart:

don't worry about stuff you have no control over.

Re:If there's one bit of mysticism I believe..

[Deadstick]

Yeah, well, if your airplane gets in trouble you'd better hope the pilot doesn't believe that.

rj

Re:

[qazsedcft]

But the pilot does have control over the plane.

Now back to the actual point. The GP wrote "if your time has come". This outcome is not determinable in advance. If you die in a crash then your time has come. If you survive then your time has not come. This is kind of like Schrodinger's cat.

Re:

[pipingguy]

Is it still legal to bring toast and butter on a plane?

Re:

[HalAtWork]

But what if you could have prevented the circumstances had you worried enough, thus becoming more aware and thus more able to influence your surroundings? You're more likely to survive, and isn't that bit of likeliness worth it when it comes to your life?

Trust me, I don't want to worry about anything, but I'm too worried not to.

Infinite loop head explode.

Re:

[SRA8]

>> don't worry about stuff you have no control over.

Which is exactly the point of this article -- you DO have some control over survival!

Control

[Tim Ward]

don't worry about stuff you have no control over

Usually when I fly I'm in the pilot's seat. Is this:

(1) good because I have control, or:
(2) bad because having control means I should worry?

Sit in the rear

[Anonymous Coward]

Rarely does an airplane back into the side of a mountain.

Re:Sit in the rear

[kryten_nl]

Rarely does an airplane back into the side of a mountain.

Because the mountains move aside when they hear that beeping sound and see the flashing lights?

Re:

[korbin_dallas]

ROTFLMAO!

My dad told me that 20 years ago!

Re:

[rossdee]

If the pilot realises the mountain is there in the last few seconds and tries to put the plane in a steep climb (thus raising the nose) it is possible for the bottom rear of the plane to hit the ground first.

Its not just a theory, it did happen this way for flight 901 in 1979. There were no survivors, all 257 passengers and crew died in the initial impact (with Mount Erebus) and fireball.

What are the odds?

[slughead]

The odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,051 in your whole lifetime. To give you some perspective, you're 5 times more likely to drown, 23 times more likely to fall to your death, and 60 times more likely to die in a car accident.

Therefore, a far more useful article would be "How to survive driving off a seaside cliff into the ocean."

Re:What are the odds?

[nerdonamotorcycle]

Indeed. You're way more likely to die as a result of the cab ride to the airport.

Re:

[buswolley]

That is why you should sit at the wing if you have flight sickness. Center of Gravity.

Re:What are the odds?

[dal20402]

PItch motions are usually pretty gentle in airliners. Roll motions can be more severe, especially in widebodies. Sit closer to the centerline. On a one-aisle plane, sit in an aisle seat; on a two-aisle plane, sit in the middle bank of seats (a center seat is best). That said, sitting close to the wing isn't a bad idea either.

Re:What are the odds?

[kryten_nl]

Therefore, a far more useful article would be "How to survive driving off a seaside cliff into the ocean."

Install wings on your car?

Re:What are the odds?

[pintpusher]

Therefore, a far more useful article would be "How to survive driving off a seaside cliff into the ocean."

Install wings on your car?

and then climb to the back seat on the way down...

Re:

[Original Replica]

I thought it was established that the intial crash kills few people, but tends to fracture alot of legs, then everyone dies in the resulting fire because they can't get out. So maybe a better article would be "How to get out of a burning plane when you have two broken legs." Of course I get all my science from MythBusters:http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/my t hbusters_killer_brace_posit.html [kwc.org]

Re:What are the odds?

[Dunbal]

Aortic dissection. This is what kills you. It's the most common, lethal deceleration injury. Of course if you're going fast enough you're simply crushed, but at "lower" speeds a sudden deceleration is enough to rotate the heart (which is fairly mobile in the chest) and rip it off the aorta (which is fixed to the posterior chest wall). The arteriovenous ligament doesn't help, either. So the aorta ruptures and you die of a cardiac tamponade. Oh and this is how Princess Diana died.

Re:What are the odds?

[tomhudson]

"Aortic dissection. This is what kills you. It's the most common, lethal deceleration injury. Of course if you're going fast enough you're simply crushed, but at "lower" speeds a sudden deceleration is enough to rotate the heart (which is fairly mobile in the chest) and rip it off the aorta (which is fixed to the posterior chest wall). The arteriovenous ligament doesn't help, either. So the aorta ruptures and you die of a cardiac tamponade. Oh and this is how Princess Diana died."

They wanted to install seats facing backwards in airplanes specifically to reduce the deaths from the initial crash. Howver, they determined that the flying public wouldn't accept rear-facing seats. Considering all the BS the flying public puts up with nowadyas, maybe its time to float the idea again.

Oh, another Princess Di joke - "I heard Princess Di was on the radio... And the dash. And the seat ..."

Re:What are the odds?

[Poromenos1]

That does it. I'm getting my heart nailed in place!

Re:What are the odds?

[nbauman]

Aortic dissection. This is what kills you. It's the most common, lethal deceleration injury. Of course if you're going fast enough you're simply crushed, but at "lower" speeds a sudden deceleration is enough to rotate the heart (which is fairly mobile in the chest) and rip it off the aorta (which is fixed to the posterior chest wall). The arteriovenous ligament doesn't help, either. So the aorta ruptures and you die of a cardiac tamponade. Oh and this is how Princess Diana died.

That's a good story. I wonder if it's true.

By a strange coincidence (only on Slashdot), I just went to a conference on aortic surgery. And I used to edit the Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings in the 1970s (great series) and I remember at least one article on aortic damage.

Bottom line: Most of the aortic damage in automobile collisions occurs to people who weren't wearing their seat belts. Those lap and shoulder belts (which the U.S. auto companies refused to install until 1967) really work well. You can thank Ralph Nader for saving about 25,000 lives a year. The auto companies also made steering columns that were positioned exactly right and strong enough to impale the driver's chest, often with a heart puncture. Thanks to Ralph Nader, they replaced them with a collapsable steering column around 1967.

Let's see the latest stuff, um, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/6/356 [nejm.org] Smith MD et al, Transesophageal Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Traumatic Rupture of the Aorta, N Engl J Med 1995 332:356-362. (Well worth reading; great X-rays.) 7 were not restrained, 2 were. Smith says:

Blunt chest trauma commonly results from motor vehicle accidents in which the sternum of an unrestrained driver strikes the steering wheel at impact.5 Rupture of the aorta has been estimated to account for up to 18 percent of deaths in motor vehicle accidents.19 As a result of rapid deceleration of the thorax and compression of the diaphragm, the aorta is subjected to extreme torque and compression at points of attachment: the sinuses of Valsalva, the isthmus, and the diaphragm.20 With compression of the mediastinum, the heart may be displaced into the right or left side of the chest, producing further stress at these points. The severe aortic-wall stress from intraluminal hypertension results in rupture through the intima, often continuing into the media and adventitial layers. Complete rupture usually results in death at the scene, whereas patients with a contained hematoma may survive to reach the hospital.

Whaddya know, the poster has a point. Aortic trauma is still a major cause of automobile fatalties, usually but not always when people aren't wearing seat belts (Diana wasn't).

But wait, Smith also says,

Thirteen patients (14.0 percent) ultimately died during hospitalization as a result of associated injuries, but no deaths were related to aortic injury (Table 1). The four deaths in the group with aortic injury were due to multiorgan-system failure (two patients), acute myocardial infarction (one patient), and hemorrhage from pelvic fracture (one patient).

I forget how to do the equations, but as I recall when a car collides against a solid barrier at 50mph, it has about 50 inches of crush space in which to come to a halt, and that comes to about 50g, which everybody told me is survivable. (One of you young whippersnappers can check my numbers.) John Paul Stapp tested it himself on his rocket sled and lived. But if you subjected 100 people to 50g, I don't know how many of them would get aortic rupture.

The other major cause of death (mostly to people who aren't wearing seat belts) is head injury. Thanks to Ralph Nader, those windshields are carefully designed with plastic laminate that has just the right elasticity to bring a passenger's head to a stop with low enough force to avoid breaking his

Re:

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

That's interesting about Nader -- I did see a book about this once, but didn't read it. If this event and 9/11 had happened around the same time, Nader would have been laughed at compared to The Evils of Terrorism. While 3000 people dying in one year is a tragedy that would be great to avoid, obviously, 25,000 a year is a greater tragedy, yet undoubtedly, out of many who don't make their kids wear a seatbelt, some probably think the dangers of terrorism are so great that they support war to stop it.

It reall

Re:

[nbauman]

That's interesting about Nader -- I did see a book about this once, but didn't read it.

That's probably Unsafe at Any Speed. Even though it was published in 1965, it's still a great book about how automotive engineering failed -- the engineers did a great job of figuring out how to save lives, but the politicians and corporate owners brushed them aside for reasons that I still can't understand.

Every engineer should read this book. (The Wikipedia entry sucks BTW.)

If this event and 9/11 had happened around the same time, Nader would have been laughed at compared to The Evils of Terrorism. While 3000 people dying in one year is a tragedy that would be great to avoid, obviously, 25,000 a year is a greater tragedy

Thomas Schelling, the Nobel laureate in economics, said that 9/11 is three months of auto fatalities, and more people die eve

Re:What are the odds?

[Alsee]

the aorta ruptures and you die of a cardiac tamponade

Speaking as a guy, tamponade sounds like a really embarrassing way to die.

-

Re:

[Viol8]

"The G-forces in most crashes are far less than those experienced in a car crash, and easily survivable. Aircraft are large and compress slowly."

What a load of crap. That might be true at low speeds but if an aircraft impacts with a mountain at 400kph (thats 110 metres per second) even a 70m 747 will be crushed flat in less than a second. Barely enough time for the occupants to even register they've hit something never mind do anything about it.

Re:

[QuantumG]

Most people feel this is reassuring. Whenever I hear it I think "man, what a complete waste of money they spend on safety.. no wonder ticket prices are so high."

I'm willing to get in a car. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of risk.. Why is it when it comes to air travel I don't have the option to accept the same amount of risk as I'm obviously willing to accept? That's a rhetorical question; I know the answer.. government regulations. The real question is, why are government regulations so much m

Re:What are the odds?

[Deadstick]

Because if we flew airplanes like most people drive cars, we'd die like flies.

rj

Re:

[Splab]

I think half the planes passengers would be trampled to death in the mayhem it is when you got 500 persons on a 747 trying to put on a parachute. On top of that, just about none of them knows how to steer a parachute, so quite a few more will probably die landing their parachute.

Re:What are the odds?

[dal20402]

There are no parachutes on airliners for the following reasons:

1. Parachutes are heavy, so a plane equipped with them could carry less cargo or passengers and ticket prices would go up.

2. Parachutes are very complex to pack, and would have to be unpacked, inspected, and repacked at regular maintenance intervals, at considerable expense (not to mention increased time out of service for the plane).

3. If the plane is high enough that parachutes will be of any use, it's impossible to open most exit doors as pressure seals them against the inside of the fuselage.

4. Only a tiny fraction of passengers would understand how to use parachutes. When all the others slam into the ground at terminal velocity -- especially if the plane somehow survives -- it's a brave new world of stupendously huge liability for the airline.

Re:

[multimed]

Which makes me think about the idea of parachutes for the aircraft itself. Ballistic parachutes have been used successfully with small planes for awhile & one manufacturer [brsparachutes.com] claims theirs have saved over 200 lives.

Obviously the physics involved in doing this for large commercial aircraft is just slightly more difficult. But by the same means, car air bags were first envisioned decades before they became possible - and really only in recent years with smart airbags that sense & adjust based on t

Re:

[dal20402]

You are still more likely to be involved in a fatal car crash that you can't do anything about than you are to be involved in an air accident. To think more clearly about it, think *only* of the probability of dying in a crash you can't control -- you're still in more danger in a car.

Re:What are the odds?

[Poromenos1]

Just about no airplane crashes from that height.

That's true, most airplanes crash on the ground.

Re:What are the odds?

[gerardrj]

To the casual observer the doors do appear to close simply like a car door, but it's not the case. If you watch carefully when the doors move you will see the complex hinge system swings the door to the interior of the aircraft then pushes is outward against the body. When the aircraft is pressurized the door is sealed by the outward pressure. To start opening these doors you must first pull on them, to close them you end up pushing on them. For reasons I can only imagine I am unable to locate any on-line video or diagrams of how this works but in this image [flickr.com] you can just barely make out the instructions to pull the door open then push it out.

Jumping from 37,000 feet and hundreds of MPH requires training and equipment. At that altitude the ambient air temperature is -70 fahrenheit. If the average terminal velocity of a person skydiving is 250 ft/s then you'll take about 2m30s to get to the ground without a 'chute. At 250 ft/s the wind chill is really, really significant. You've then got a choice to make (any perhaps the airline would instruct you about the best action): open the 'chute immediately after exiting the plane or wait until you are nearer the ground.
Opening the parachute early means you are certain to hit the ground slowly but maximized your exposure to very low temperatures and low oxygen with all those inherent injuries.
Opening the parachute later means more wind chill and possibly more tissue damage. Your betting that you'll be conscious to pull the rip cord. You also have much less time to perform an maneuvering to get to a "good" landing spot.

That said, given the choice of almost certain death on a severely disabled airliner or possible death by parachute I'd probably choose the parachute.

Re:What are the odds?

[Fastolfe]

While I agree that those four issues are relatively weak (but still important when costing solutions for the problem), the biggest problem with parachutes is that exceedingly few air accidents occur in a manner that allows parachutes to be useful. If you suffer a catastrophic failure mid-flight, it's unlikely that you're going to have time to get parachutes on everyone and get them all out the door, even assuming the plane is continuing to fly straight and level (imagine trying to accomplish this while you're spiraling toward the ground). If you do have time to do all of that, then the plane really isn't in that bad of shape and it's more likely that the landing will be safer, even if it's unpowered with some critical systems failed, than throwing everyone out the door to fend for themselves.

For accidents that occur during landing or just after take-off, even ignoring the time factor, your altitude is far too low to safely bail out.

There could be some scenarios where parachutes would save lives, and the crew would be in a position to know that parachutes would be safer than trying to land, but I rather suspect these scenarios are going to be rare.

At some point you have to ask yourself if the odds of this solution saving lives justify the enormous costs of implementing it.

Re:

[ewg]

It's also worth reflecting on the leading causes of death in the USA as reported by the CDC: accidents of all kinds are only in the middle of the list.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm [cdc.gov]

Re:

[jointm1k]

. . . and 60 times more likely to die in a car accident.

That's only because the average human does a whole lot less traveling by plane than he does by car.

Re:

[Ossifer]

It's all about skewing the data to make whatever point you feel like. Actually, cars are still more dangerous per passenger mile. However airplane flights are generally only dangerous at take off and landing. I.e. airline flights are equally dangerous regardless of distance, whereas car accidents are more likely the longer the trip. But then we know that most car accidents occur close to home... but then most car trips are short ones close to home... etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum...

Re:What are the odds?

[dkleinsc]

I tend to view the issue with plane crashes (and terrorism, which is even more ridiculously unlikely) is the loss of control. With cars, if you're driving, you feel like you're in control of the vehicle, and by extension the situation, and thus feel safer. Even if you have a friend driving, you now have someone you (probably) trust in control of the situation.

By contrast, in a plane, you're totally at the mercy of the pilots and air traffic controllers. You don't know them, and you know that if they screw up there's pretty close to nothing you can do about it. So even if the risk is actually less, it appears to be greater, because you are giving up control over whether you live or die.

Re:What are the odds?

[joseph449008]

No, I think it has to do with crashing down from about an altitude of 30,000 feet.

Re:

[SRA8]

>> I tend to view the issue with plane crashes (and terrorism, which is even more ridiculously unlikely) is the loss of control. If loss of control were a problem people wouldnt drink [and drive] would they :-)

Re:

[Zadaz]

...because you are giving up control over whether you live or die.

My friend, you lost control of that the moment you were born.

Re:

[Tribbin]

Because that would be boring:

- Don't drive while drunk
- Don't drive while tired
- Don't call while driving
- Don't verbally fight while driving
- Don't speed
- Fasten seatbelts
- No sex while driving

Who want's to read that, heh?!

Yes - but what are the odds of ...

[dustpuppy]

being in a plane that disintegrates in mid-air, falling onto a road, getting hit by a car whilst it's raining where I drown in a deep water-filled pothole. That's what's got me most concerned.

Re:

[stripmarkup]

Obviously it depends on how much you fly. So far this year I've flown 27 segments (take offs and landings) on work assignments. I wonder what's the average per person.

Re:

[Odin's Raven]

The odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,051 in your whole lifetime. To give you some perspective, you're 5 times more likely to drown, 23 times more likely to fall to your death, and 60 times more likely to die in a car accident.

Therefore, a far more useful article would be "How to survive driving off a seaside cliff into the ocean."

The answer is self-evident - as you're driving off the cliff, simply aim your car at a passing airplane. Once you've embedded your car into the side of the plan

Statistics can mean anything you want

[Viol8]

"and 60 times more likely to die in a car accident."

Given I use my car everyday and I fly about twice a year max (and that probably roughly applies to a lot of people) it would seem to me that my car is actually safer than the plane. In fact you could say that for most people the safest method of transport is the space shuttle since hardly anyone will ever travel in it!

Re:

[Khashishi]

Obviously, your odds go up if you fly a lot. Business travelers?

Re:

[Tribbin]

No, that chance is exactly 0.

People die right AFTER their whole lifetime.

Reminds me of...

[rundstykke]

..an entertaining read I bumped into a couple of months back, describing how to survive a freefall from 35'000 feet...

http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/carkeet.html [greenharbor.com]


/Rundstykke

Re:

[Dunbal]

This "article" is so very, very wrong in a number of ways. It's a work of fiction, nothing more.

Re:Reminds me of...

[Elemenope]

It's funny. Laugh.

Worry about something else

[Kohath]

If you're really worried about a plane crash, I suggest staying home. Maybe don't get out of bed at all.

Watching and reading the news is your real problem. Things that happen on the news are extremely unlikely to happen to you. That's why you never see headlines like "Jill Larson Goes to the Market. Buys Coffee. (Subtitle: Coffee purchase exceeds analysts' expectations by 100%)"

That's all. I have to go to the market. But I'm not buying coffee, so no commercial airliners will crash today.

Re:

[LGagnon]

That's why you never see headlines like "Jill Larson Goes to the Market. Buys Coffee.

Actually, you do. They call these things commercials.

Oh like that will work...

[reality-bytes]

If you're really worried about a plane crash, I suggest staying home. Maybe don't get out of bed at all.

Okay, so it would work up to a point. The 'point' being the airliner that crashes into your house.

BBC already did this...

[Joce640k]

The BBC did a documentary on this...and...

The best place is "near an exit door".

Statistically, most crashes are survivable if you can get out. The biggest impediment to getting out is the number of other people between you and the door. The ones who don't get out die of smoke/fire.

Front or back seat of a car

[antifoidulus]

provided you aren't driving. That is much more important question. Or even better yet, why in the hell are SUVs legal? An ever better question that can save many more lives!

Not on Oceanic 815...

[Anonymous Coward]

... where all but one of the survivors from the tail section so far as been kidnapped or murdered.

Re:

[no_pets]

Damn, I wish that I had mod points. :-)

Re:

[AJWM]

where all but one of the survivors from the tail section so far as been kidnapped or murdered.

And, strictly speaking, he wasn't a tail section passenger. His assigned seat was midsection, he just happened to be in a tailsection bathroom when the excitement started. (Although IIRC he had time to strap himself into a seat which ended up in a tree.)

(I just got Season 2 from the library and watched the whole thing in about three days. Probably fried some neural circuits. ;-)

Excuse me...

[AsmCoder8088]

The raw data from these 20 accidents has been languishing for decades in National Transportation Safety Board files, waiting to be analyzed by anyone curious enough to look and willing to do the statistical drudgework.

So, they are working off of a sample size of twenty??? Not sure if I would draw too many conclusions from this dataset.

Re:

[pyite]

I had the exact same thought. At first I thought this might be kinda cool. Then I saw 20. Twenty? You have to be kidding.

Re:Excuse me...

[fermion]

Yeah, and this is likely the least of their troubles. The data was basically 50/50, and they did not show that 5% difference was significant.

Given thier analysis, and what often happens in a plane crash, this is what I think might be a more reasonable conclusion.

In the event of a passenger jet crash, probability is that everyone will die. If everyone does not die, the statistics still favor a majority of the passengers being killed in the crash.

The analysis in the paper appears to show a slightly higher probability of survival in the back of the plane, but did not show that the level was statistically significant. In the other cases the was not a clear effect of seat position, and often the back of the plane appeared to be preferentially fatal.

So, in summary, the passenger jet is not likely to crash. In the few cases where a crash does occur, and fatalities ensue, then there are not, on average, going to be many survivors. In the extremely rare case that jet crashes and there are survivors, a passenger may be safer up back, unless it is one of those cases where you are safe in front. Therefore, the best thing to do is sit somewhere in the middle.

The MythBusters say it is the

[Joe The Dragon]

The MythBusters say it is the rear facing flight attendant seat in the back of the plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_2 )#Escape [wikipedia.org] Slide Parachute

Re:

[mykdavies]

The MythBusters say it is the rear facing flight attendant seat in the back of the plane.

Without having seen the episode in question, I'd imagine that all that they could reasonably show is that a sober and alert member of cabin crew who has been through extensive training in how to survive emergency situations and is sitting in the rear facing flight attendant seat in the back of the plane is most likely to survive.

Is it expensive

[WormholeFiend]

to get a seat inside the black box?

Re:

[Dunbal]

It's the G forces that kill you. Even inside the "black box" you'd be splattered all over the front wall.

If you're sitting in the back of a plane that hits the ground nose first, all that damage and crumpling buys you time since the plane is changing kinetic energy into "damage". By the time your section enters the impact zone (and yes we're talking milliseconds) you will have decelerated a little. This means less G forces when your section hits the ground (which is NOT that flexible a

Re:

[Albert Sandberg]

to get a seat inside the black box?

Probably, but the shocks would still kill you, however, you can pickup a cheap black plastic bag at your local supermarket and pretend it's like the real thing. Warning though, do not try while driving. Better use your tinfoil hat.

Best way to survice a crash...

[niceone]

...just reboot and you should be fine.

excellent

[JustNiz]

All those arrogant dicks in first class get to die first.

Oh well

[kilodelta]

I guess being in first class isn't that much more advantageous.

Don't sit in the back!

[Per Wigren]

That's where the snakes are!

First Class

[15Bit]

As a regular flier in cattle-class, i'd just like to say that its nice to see first class passengers getting the preferential treatment they deserve. First on, first off and first into the mountainside...

I want to die like my grandfather...

[microcars]

peacefully in his sleep

not like the passengers in his car, screaming and yelling

The safest seat in a crash

[highlander76]

The safest seat in a crash is probably a window seat so God can better hear your pleas for him to save you.

I disagree...

[keytohwy]

On Lost, the ones towards the back were the first to be picked off by "the others." Only the front seats for me!

Sitting in back is counterproductive

[Waffle Iron]

According to this site [airlinesafety.com], if you fly every day, you'd get killed once every 19,000 years. That's about a 1 in 7 million odds per flight, which sounds about right.

When you sit in the back, it takes longer to get off of the plane because you have to wait for all the bozos in front of you to fumble for their personal belongings. I'd say that a conservative estimate is an average of 5 extra minutes. So before your first expected crash, you'd waste 5 * 7,000,000 minutes, or 66 solid years waiting at the back of planes. So to save each life, you're essentially using up an entire lifetime standing hunched over watching old codgers wrestle with their suitcases. (It's actually much worse than that, because only a fraction of fatal crashes even have a difference in outcome between the front and the back. A lot of times, everybody dies and sitting in the back doesn't help anyway.)

Um, semantic quibble

[argStyopa]

From TFA: "...So when the "experts" tell you it doesn't matter where you sit, have a chuckle and head for the back of the plane. And once your seatbelt is firmly fastened, relax: There's been just one fatal jet crash in the U.S. in the last five-plus years"

1 jet crash in the last "five-plus" years? Doesn't five-plus = five or more?
I'm pretty sure that there has been more than one fatal crash in the last "five or more" years, no?

Perhaps he meant "slightly more than five"?

Chivalry has not died

[icepick72]

All of a sudden chivalry makes a comeback as men everywhere offer their mother-in-laws the more comfortable front seats of the plane.

Re:

[FieroEtnl]

So you would rather drive for three days to cross the country rather than fly for one? Given what gas prices are like now, you'd probably end up spending more on the car trip than the plane, and you'd be spending an extra couple of days traveling. I think I'll take my chances with the sick people and potential delays.

Re:

[TheDigitalOne]

I just went through the cross-country driving exercise last week. Seattle -> Baltimore driving an RV took 4 days of driving 12 hours per day, about 48 hours all told, the RV gets 7 MPG 2,800 miles so 400 gallons of gas at around $3/per, so $1,200 in gas alone (nevermind food, etc).

The return flight took 5 hours and cost me $149.00

After seeing so many whacko drivers on the road during the trip I have no doubt in my mind that the driving portion was vastly more dangerous than the return flight!

Re:

[Dun Malg]

What in the world are you doing driving an RV with only one person? An RV is mass transit.

No, a 60 passenger bus is mass transit. An RV is mobile living accommodations for 1-6 people. You don't drive one to move a lot of people around efficiently, you drive one to have a place to dwell when you arrive. It's a special purpose vehicle the same way a semi is.

Re:

[Blahbooboo3]

And trains are the most civilized way to travel.

What the heck are you smoking??? Have you been on a train in the USA lately? My god, even the nicer Amtrak Acela are barely decent.

Re:

[nelsonal]

I've had pretty good experiences in the trains in the i-95 corridor. I think it's funny that the trains are much faster than planes with the congestion at airports. Nothing beats a Western US bus trip, it's not just a ride, it's an adventure. A modern bard could build a lifetime of tales from two regional bus trips.

Re:

[dal20402]

OK, air travel can be unpleasant and unpredictable, but it's still *way* safer than driving. Saying you'll drive because you're afraid of an air crash is like saying you'll run Windows 98 because you're afraid of the security holes in Vista.

Re:

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I flew once shortly after I had had a sinus congestion of some sort.

Do not do this.

The initial flight was unpleasant, with not only my ears, but even my sinuses popping. I'm talking about the ones near your nose. Fleeing those pop at 36000 is at once relieving and incredibly disturbing. Anyway, something must have gotten in on that flight, I suspect from one of the many other passengers who spent the flight snorting, snuffling and blowing their noses.

By the time of the return flight a week later I had spent

Re:Anti-EU much ?

[funwithBSD]

You are a little over sensitive.

"Move to the back of the bus." is a common phrase in America.

Re:

[dubbayu_d_40]

C'est honky - it's a noir thing.

Re:

[teebob21]

This comment likely has nothing to do with Airbus vs. Boeing safety statistics. You may recall the early 1960's in the US when the back of the bus was a stigmatized area. Blacks in back, whites rode up front. The phrase "(Move to the) Back of the bus, Rosa" still gets thrown around as a racial joke in my area, although rarely in seriousness. I believe the submitter was attempting to create a witty wordplay which was lost on many Slashdotters.