What REALLY Matters In Surviving A Plane Crash
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2023
- The one key factor which keep plane crashes survivable…
🟢🟢🟢 SUPPORT 3 Greens by clicking the JOIN button above 🟢🟢🟢
You will receive:
Early access to videos (by 48 hours)
Access to the 3 Greens Discord
View my notes on every accident report
A CZcams shoutout!
Plus lots more in the pipeline!!
As Jeremy Clarkson said, "Speed never killed anybody. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."
Woo, Top Gear 2010s nostalgia right there. :) But yeah, sudden changes in speed are harmful (going from 100 to 0 in a fraction of a second), not the speed itself.
The first two also show why a plane skidding through some distance can actually result in higher survivability/less severe injuries: the deceleration is more gradual
This video's thumbnail made me laughs in tears for absolutely no reason at all 😂😂😂😂
Generally, the danger is from deceleration.
Remember.. there's always enough fuel to get to the scene of the accident !
Alot of this seemed like common sense but I'm glad you taking the time to educate people how safe planes are. Can't wait for the rest if the series
Love that someone is putting this to examination. While this seems mostly like basic "101 stuff", I'm confident you'll build upon what we can agree on in basic terms. I DO find it a little bit dubious that the "authorities" treat a bird strike statistically the same as CFIT or runway excursions for that "95% survivable" factor... at least while they're bragging or "selling" aviation. I know, it's a bit nit-picky, and I'm NOT calling out 3-greens! It IS worth looking up the different types of incidents and accidents for their individual statistics, even though CFIT is the least survivable but also among the least likely to happen. ;o)
I always ask to be sat inside the black box.
Why don't they make the whole plane out of the same material as the black box?
The plane would be heavy, if it was made of the black box material, and wouldn't be able to fly, or waste tons of fuel.
@@eucliduschaumeau8813 They need to make people's with black box material to have the full effect.
Great content mate, exactly highlighting key points the general public might not consider, or just have the incorrect perspective about. And those things kill indeed.
What a great series keep up the good work
The number one reason for fatalities in airplanes is Swiss cheese. Never eat Swiss cheese on a plane
The Swiss Cheese model, where multiple factors line up.
100% of people watching this video have not died in a plane crash
Statistically, they say seating over the wings is the safest place, but the fuel tanks are usually by the wings as well. My old theory was to choose a seat in the tail, where the G-forces are the lowest and the tail will sometimes break off on impact, making for an easier egress. It all has to do with the type of crash as well. In a post-crash fire, it is essential that everyone gets off the plane in less than 90 seconds. Move away as quickly as you can to avoid flash-over or an explosion.
There's a trade-off at the wings. They ARE the fuel tanks most of the time, BUT they're also the structures supporting the entire plane... So for whatever risk is added for being where they keep the fuel bladders and fuel, there's also extra structural framing involved in order to support the plane. On a jetliner, that's on a scale of 100,000 pounds or more, so a substantial upgrade from what's required at any other place on the fuselage.
At the rear, there's also some structural framing, so the tail can do it's job, too... BUT most of the protection actually comes from the rest of the fuselage being available to absorb impact and deform or otherwise take damage, and of course... no bladders or fuel to predominantly worry about.
All in all, for what it's worth, I'm not entirely sold on there even really being a "safest place" across all plane types and models. Even just from Boeing to Airbus, there are probably some nuances to exactly where the best "zones" would exactly begin or end for the balance of structure added for risk of fuel discharge or fire... There's also hydraulics from nose to tail, at least in Boeing, and hydraulic fluid will also burn if you get it hot enough... It comes down to luck as much as anything, because you're still sitting in a 100,000 pound tin-can with a cruise speed around 200 mph and it's coming to a stop much quicker and in a fashion that it was NOT entirely designed or intended to do.
To escape at all with your life is probably very lucky. To walk away "relatively unscathed" is bordering on winning the lottery, if we're honest. ;o)
Plus, the pilots could press the fuel jettison button, and empty the fuel before a crash, so the wind will be empty of the fuel, and will be less of a fire risk.
You deserve more views man, seriously!!
Solid new format
hello i love ur vids
amazing videos!
I needed cheering up. .
More passengers escaped the Hindenburg fire and crash then normally escape aircraft impacts with terrain.
Love your videos! The background music in this one is beautiful, can you please tell me what the name is?
Thanks mate :) It's just stock music from Envato.
Is that 4.9mm PAX per plane death or 1 in 4.9mm plane journeys resulting in deaths? If the latter, it’s around 150 times lower than the risk of a given flight going down so gives a false sense of security.
Wow
i fly
Hopefully this isn't the new format of the Channel!
Strange that your picture at the end when talking about loss of control was actually a piece of the NZ DC-10 that died from CFIT on Mt. Erebus in Antarctica due to number of lapses in judgment both before and during the flight. Oh, and you never got back to why gender was a survival factor.
??????????????????????1min