It's safer up the back....

[Soundguy]

Forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere but Popular Mechanics has what I thought was an interesting article with some statistics from US plane crashes which shows that in a crash with survivors your chances up the back are measurably better.

No that this will deter any of you intrepid WP & SG's..... or myself for that matter! Besides I mostly fly Qantas and they don't crash.

And we all have to die some way of course. Not to mention that where I live in the backward and beggarly state of Rannistan the roads are much more dangerous than plane flights and all. Survive the taxi ride to the airport and you've crossed the major hurdle of the day....

 

[Commuter]

I guess it doesn't crash bum-first too often...

(I'm being daft and simplistic)

 

[drron]

I guess it doesn't crash bum-first too often...

(I'm being daft and simplistic)

I think it may have been comedian Dave Allen who used to say he always flew economy as he had never heard of a plane backing into a mountain.

 

[Yada Yada]

Besides I mostly fly Qantas and they don't crash.

Ummm... pardon? :shock: :shock: :shock:

More here.

 

[serfty]

... Besides I mostly fly Qantas and they don't crash. ...

It's more the case that Qantas have not had a fatal Jet flight accident.

There certainly have been several incidents that put aircraft out of action.

 

[Brettmcg]

Forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere but Popular Mechanics has what I thought was an interesting article with some statistics from US plane crashes which shows that in a crash with survivors your chances up the back are measurably better.

This may be true, but have a read through these statistics:
The NTSB in the United States stated that your chance of being killed in a motorcar accident is around 1 in 5,000. If you decide to travel by train, your odd of dying due to a train crash is reduced to around 1 in 400,000, yet in an airplane, it varies from 1 in 400,000 to 1 in 10,000,000 depending on the reputation of the airline you are travelling on.

Statistics showed that scheduled commercial airlines had a fatal accident rate of 0.026 per 100,000 flying hours. Essentially, a passenger would have to fly 24 hours a day for over 400 years before he would be involved in a fatal accident!

The 10-year survey compiled by Dr Arnold Barnett for the period 1987 to 1996 indicated that the mortality risk per flight for International jet in the advanced world was one in five million. That is equivalent to taking a random flight everyday for about 13,000 years (5,000,000 divided by 365 days) to be involved in a fatal crash! In the lesser ranking airlines, the mortality risk per passenger flight is in the region of around 1 in 400,000. Even with this lower rate, you still have to take a flight every day for about 1000 years before you are likely to be involved in a fatal accident!

 

[littl_flier]

At least on the A380, being up the back won't be too bad. Provided its upstairs that is.

 

[codash1099]

Ummm... pardon? :shock: :shock: :shock:

More here.

That's not a crash - just an extended landing on a runway that was too short on the day.

 

[Mal]

It's more the case that Qantas have not had a fatal flight accident.

There certainly have been several incidents that put aircraft out of action.

Nah, that's not correct either. I believe their record is that they havn't had any fatal jetliner crashes. They had a few fatalities in their early days before Jets. There's a Wiki article on it if you're interested Qantas fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[clifford]

That's not a crash - just an extended landing on a runway that was too short on the day.

It sure scared the cough out of the golfers.

And I understand the co-pilot's wife wasn't amused either.

 

[wallacej]

Flying DJ, my seat as a preference is 24C or 30C, depending on whether I am on a 700 or 800.... I thought I was just being smart to get off quicker, but I was also flying safe too!!!

 

[Soundguy]

Yeah, well my comment about QF was very much tongue in cheek!

But they do have a good record and I give them credit for that.

And notice how the passengers at the rear of the plane below are the furthest from the impact point?

Ummm... pardon? :shock:

More here.

 

[QF WP]

I think it may have been comedian Dave Allen who used to say he always flew economy as he had never heard of a plane backing into a mountain.

That was a phrase that has stayed with me . But I agree with the OP, that service up the front in J or F is better than the back in Y.

I've also heard, but not experienced, the greater movement of the plane (flexing) at the back of the plane than in J or F.

 

[Evan]

I've also heard, but not experienced, the greater movement of the plane (flexing) at the back of the plane than in J or F.

Without any doubt at all its more bumpy up the back in the tail, i guess its just that the rest of the plane rotates aound the wings more or less.
And yes you can see a plane flex, just like a car.

Anyway that just rocks you to sleep never worried me, but i am only ever up the back if i can get a row blocked to sleep.

The strongest place in a plane it between the wings.... but also a lot of fuel around there as well.

(OT for anybody who know Japanese performance cars: Its amazing how little flex there is in an R34 GT-R compared to an R32/R33, just jack one up in one corner and you will see what i mean, ok not many people have or will get the chance to test but it really is a much stiffer chassis in the later model, thinking of making my SO live in Japan 1 more year so i can personal import one of the new models, released next month !, then again 12 months wait after that is a long wait for a car in AU, maybe i should just move to Japan and drive it all i want. ... somewhere there was a point to this, and i was getting to is that its amazing how flexible metal and planes really is, i wonder how the carbon b787's will be for flex)

E

 

[simongr]

When considering the long term factors of how safe you you have to balance the damage to the body by being up the back due to less space (compression on the spine) and irrregular meals against the damage being done to one's body by the champagne in F. It's a tough choice from a health perspective

 

[Evan]

If only we only all had the tough choice !
And don't worry the F champagne is good for you

 

[straitman]

When considering the long term factors of how safe you you have to balance the damage to the body by being up the back due to less space (compression on the spine) and irrregular meals against the damage being done to one's body by the champagne in F. It's a tough choice from a health perspective

Maybe we should organise a consultant company to study the pros and cons of one versus the other. I'll happily volunteer to be the one being studied sipping champagne in F. Any volunteers to sit down the back :?:

 

[JohnK]

Any volunteers to sit down the back :?:

I will volunteer to sit down the back if airfares and all expenses are included.

 

[straitman]

I will volunteer to sit down the back if airfares and all expenses are included.

JohnK,

I believe this to be a truely important piece of research and the AFF should sponsor us through to the conclusion. (It could take a while)

 

[oz_mark]

JohnK,

I believe this to be a truely important piece of research and the AFF should sponsor us through to the conclusion. (It could take a while)

And in fairness, to minimise the chance of bias, I would suggest that you need to swap who is sitting where so that you can both measure the difference. Sorry, straitman, but in the interest of improved research design....