If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(That Video Site)   This is what a crashing Boeing 727 airplane looks like ... from the inside   (thatvideosite.com) divider line 41
    More: Scary, Boeing  
•       •       •

7372 clicks; posted to Video » on 11 Oct 2012 at 11:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-11 10:14:40 AM
Neat. That was about as tame as a plane crash can get, though. To add realism you would need structures that would tear through the plane (like navaids, approach lights, and other airport buildings), and there was a distinct lack of smoke and fire, which are the biggest threats in an otherwise physically survivable accident. Cool data for any airliner that pancakes onto a runway or a dry lake bed, though.
 
2012-10-11 10:21:48 AM
Hey look, a 3 minute commercial.
 
2012-10-11 10:45:59 AM
/ Wanted for questioning 
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-11 11:39:17 AM
I just think it's awesome that they got to jump from a 727.
 
2012-10-11 11:43:54 AM

chopit: I just think it's awesome that they got to jump from a 727.


So did this guy.

upload.wikimedia.org

/727 is completely out of passenger service
//Too loud
 
2012-10-11 11:47:29 AM
I was sitting with my dad when Discovery was doing their whole "For the first time ever!!!" about crashing this aircraft. He got pissed and said that this has been done so many times it is not even worth watching. Then again, he has been in the aviation industry for nearly 30 years now so he has seen, read, heard just about everything.
 
2012-10-11 11:48:50 AM
What airline do you work for? 

www.craftster.org
 
2012-10-11 12:03:54 PM
People are injured and/or killed in plane crashes??? Mind = blown.
 
2012-10-11 12:14:11 PM

Charlie Freak: Neat. That was about as tame as a plane crash can get, though. To add realism you would need structures that would tear through the plane (like navaids, approach lights, and other airport buildings), and there was a distinct lack of smoke and fire, which are the biggest threats in an otherwise physically survivable accident. Cool data for any airliner that pancakes onto a runway or a dry lake bed, though.


Yeah, usually it's the smoke and fire that get people who survive the impact in crashes like this.
 
2012-10-11 12:25:40 PM
I see that American Airlines donated seat 7A.
 
2012-10-11 12:27:57 PM
I can see that there is pretty good incentive for the pilots not to crash-land a plane like that. The whole nose section ripped off and got sucked underneath.
 
2012-10-11 12:33:14 PM

Charlie Freak: and there was a distinct lack of smoke and fire


You might prefer this 1984 NASA test of an experimental fuel additive that was supposed to prevent ignition in a crash. The key phrase being "supposed to"...
 
2012-10-11 12:36:33 PM

cgraves67: I can see that there is pretty good incentive for the pilots not to crash-land a plane like that. The whole nose section ripped off and got sucked underneath.


As far as crash landing are concerned, that one pretty much sucked.
 
2012-10-11 12:42:31 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I see that American Airlines donated seat 7A.


Thread OVER!!
 
2012-10-11 12:43:27 PM
I would have bet they could of actually landed the plane in that scenario. Most plane crashes are crashes not crash landings. all you can do in a crash is put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.
 
2012-10-11 01:06:54 PM

Ivo Shandor: Charlie Freak: and there was a distinct lack of smoke and fire

You might prefer this 1984 NASA test of an experimental fuel additive that was supposed to prevent ignition in a crash. The key phrase being "supposed to"...


I had that in mind, but in that test they landed crabbed and there were cutters on the runway to open up the fuel tanks.They were shooting for a clean cut to allow for a "controlled" variable, but nonetheless, the antimisting jet-a didn't really work.

Didn't watch the special, but did they land this 727 with dry tanks or something?
 
2012-10-11 02:12:28 PM
My wife and I were watching this together and at the end she asked what turned out to be a VERY obvious question:

"Um, where's the luggage?"

If you watch the video from the cabin, you'll notice that one of the first things that happen is that the overhead compartments pop open. However, in this experiment the bins were empty. Imagine if this was a real-world incident. Imagine the thousands of pounds of carry-on luggage raining down/being missled forward at 200mph.

Experiment FAIL.
 
2012-10-11 02:42:48 PM

darch: Experiment FAIL.


That airframe isn't in commercial passenger service, well, anywhere, and was probably at least 30 years old.

You should see what they're doing to retired military aircraft. That F-4 from Vietnam your uncle flew? Yeah, it got shot down over the Nevada Test Site. That F-14 they pulled off a carrier five years ago? Same thing. Then they bombed the shiat out of it to make sure the landing gear was destroyed (to make sure there was no way the Iranians could get it). Suppose either is better than getting shoved at Davis-Monthan AFB.....
 
2012-10-11 02:44:26 PM

darch: My wife and I were watching this together and at the end she asked what turned out to be a VERY obvious question:

"Um, where's the luggage?"

If you watch the video from the cabin, you'll notice that one of the first things that happen is that the overhead compartments pop open. However, in this experiment the bins were empty. Imagine if this was a real-world incident. Imagine the thousands of pounds of carry-on luggage raining down/being missled forward at 200mph.

Experiment FAIL.


No, they actually chose not to have that variable. It's pretty well studied what cargo does to the human body. Canadian and European crash testing requirements are set up to evaluate the effects of cargo in the trunk with uniform blocks roughly the size and weight of a couple suitcases. So there have been literally thousands of tests done evaluating unrestrained cargo effects on the human body.

They also didn't want that kind of additional risk to the dummies and other instrumentation in this crash. They had 15 test dummies (Source) and other accelerometers (and probably potentiometers and possibly some load cells, depending) floating around in that cabin. *Each one* of those dummies tops $50,000. Granted, this was done in part with Television money, but given the lead time needed to build one of these dummies (around 3-6 months) there is NO WAY that they purchased all 15 of these new for this program. A crash test lab (or more likely, several) loaned them to this project.

I thought this was a well-done crash test, in terms of evaluating what they set out to. By the way, that article I linked above gives a lot more detail about the set-up and goals of the experiment.

/Mechanical Engineer, specializing in Crash Safety.
//Full scale vehicle crash tests are enough of a nightmare to set up, logistically. I can't imagine what it took to get this to go off as well as it did...
 
2012-10-11 03:43:26 PM
It's like watching this presidential election from the inside.
 
2012-10-11 03:45:55 PM

slapmastered: I thought this was a well-done crash test, in terms of evaluating what they set out to.


I'm actually slightly surprised that the brace position actually makes that much of a significant difference but it does seem that every test that's been done shows that the brace position significantly reduces not only broken bones, but severe spinal injuries as well - both of which are best avoided if you want to get out of a plane quickly after it's crashed.
 
2012-10-11 04:21:26 PM
Yet another reason to not pay extra for 1st class seats.
 
2012-10-11 04:31:56 PM

Danack: slapmastered: I thought this was a well-done crash test, in terms of evaluating what they set out to.

I'm actually slightly surprised that the brace position actually makes that much of a significant difference but it does seem that every test that's been done shows that the brace position significantly reduces not only broken bones, but severe spinal injuries as well - both of which are best avoided if you want to get out of a plane quickly after it's crashed.


Makes sense from a physics standpoint actually. The spine is relatively weak in column loading (+/- Z direction) so sitting up in a slam-down type accident is not good. Survivable (think ejection seats) but not good. However, the human body is much stronger when you orient the accelerations in a +/- X direction (chest-toward-spine, or spine-toward-chest). Humans have survived 83 G's in a rear-impact scenario (Capt. Eli Beeding) and do well in frontal crashes as well, when properly restrained.

Bracing has more to do with injury mechanisms, however. Bracing yourself means that you aren't as likely to be flailing a limb around wildly, risking striking something or someone, and also pre-positions your spine forward, so there is less whipping as the plane slows down (not just whiplash in a strict definition, but the flexion-extension moments created in the spine as your head whips forward.)

/Whee! I get to be the resident "farker who claims to know what he's talking about" in this thread!
 
2012-10-11 05:24:34 PM

Charlie Freak: Ivo Shandor: Charlie Freak: and there was a distinct lack of smoke and fire

You might prefer this 1984 NASA test of an experimental fuel additive that was supposed to prevent ignition in a crash. The key phrase being "supposed to"...

I had that in mind, but in that test they landed crabbed and there were cutters on the runway to open up the fuel tanks.They were shooting for a clean cut to allow for a "controlled" variable, but nonetheless, the antimisting jet-a didn't really work.

Didn't watch the special, but did they land this 727 with dry tanks or something?




Believe it or not, no. They had about 8000 lbs in the wings and interestingly the engines went to WFO after it settled.

You could hear them spool up and see the jet exhaust blasting dirt behind the plane. The firefighters shot water into the engines to stall them. Interesting show.


One thing they came away with was designing a break away nose gear. That was responsible for tearing the front section of the fuselage from the plane.
 
2012-10-11 05:34:49 PM

hodge-podge: Yet another reason to not pay extra for 1st class seats.


I'd tend to agree but they made a point with rear mounted engines that if they go up in flames it will likely engulf the rear of the plane too.

It's best to just not fly at all. I'll keep upgrading to 1st class so I can go out in style; drunk and with that hot female flight attendant sitting on my face.
 
2012-10-11 06:26:20 PM
I used to fly on this plane all the time. It was a Champion Air charter plane for college and pro football teams. Hate to see her go. She was one of the fastest planes flying comercially. We made it from Louisiana to Wyoming in under 2 hours. I always complained about sitting near the rear crapper. They put us radio guys and the cheerleaders in the back of the bus. I would have survived. Also, repopulating the desert of Mexico would have been fun.

"Play Like a Champion Today"

media.cnbc.com
 
2012-10-11 06:38:12 PM

nutriagumbo: I used to fly on this plane all the time. It was a Champion Air charter plane for college and pro football teams. Hate to see her go. She was one of the fastest planes flying comercially. We made it from Louisiana to Wyoming in under 2 hours. I always complained about sitting near the rear crapper. They put us radio guys and the cheerleaders in the back of the bus. I would have survived. Also, repopulating the desert of Mexico would have been fun.

"Play Like a Champion Today"

[media.cnbc.com image 450x293]


A shame to see her go. 727s were rugged little bastards. Spent many a mile on the Eastern Shuttle.
 
2012-10-11 06:50:25 PM

Enormous-Schwanstucker: hodge-podge: Yet another reason to not pay extra for 1st class seats.

I'd tend to agree but they made a point with rear mounted engines that if they go up in flames it will likely engulf the rear of the plane too.

It's best to just not fly at all. I'll keep upgrading to 1st class so I can go out in style; drunk and with that hot female flight attendant sitting on my face.



Funny that is actually the exact reason I choose to sit in the back of the plane.
 
2012-10-11 07:39:12 PM

Lligeret: Enormous-Schwanstucker: hodge-podge: Yet another reason to not pay extra for 1st class seats.

I'd tend to agree but they made a point with rear mounted engines that if they go up in flames it will likely engulf the rear of the plane too.

It's best to just not fly at all. I'll keep upgrading to 1st class so I can go out in style; drunk and with that hot female flight attendant sitting on my face.


Funny that is actually the exact reason I choose to sit in the back of the plane.


Which part, the hot female FA or the engines going BOOM?
 
2012-10-11 07:53:57 PM

darch: My wife and I were watching this together and at the end she asked what turned out to be a VERY obvious question:

"Um, where's the luggage?"

If you watch the video from the cabin, you'll notice that one of the first things that happen is that the overhead compartments pop open. However, in this experiment the bins were empty. Experiment FAIL.



Just watched the show. All the overhead lockers had bags in them. The reason no bags came down was because the lockers stayed shut, it was the rest of the cabin dressing that came down, not the lockers which stayed up and closed.

However, they also (very briefly) showed the under deck storage area for checked baggage and cargo. This had been compressed enough that the cargo would have been forced up, and lifted the deck that the seats are fastened to, which would have made more seats going flying around the cabin, which is not highly survivable for anyone in that seat, or whoever that seat lands on.
 
2012-10-11 08:10:19 PM
Man those pilots were brave!!!!! Too bad there isn't some way to control a plane from the ground, so real pilots wouldn't have to jump out the back at the last minute.

/meh
 
2012-10-11 08:43:35 PM
That was cool as hell.

I love Fark, btw.
 
2012-10-11 09:41:49 PM
Neat.
Now do it in water, in a wooded area, against a mountain.
We already know how they fare against buildings, so no need to go there.
 
2012-10-11 11:04:06 PM

envirovore: Neat.
Now do it in water, in a wooded area, against a mountain.
We already know how they fare against buildings, so no need to go there.


Oh, SNAP!
 
2012-10-12 12:23:15 AM
in a real crash there would be airplane fuel that starts a fire. why didn't this happen here
 
2012-10-12 02:28:41 AM

Enormous-Schwanstucker: Charlie Freak: Ivo Shandor: Charlie Freak: and there was a distinct lack of smoke and fire

You might prefer this 1984 NASA test of an experimental fuel additive that was supposed to prevent ignition in a crash. The key phrase being "supposed to"...

I had that in mind, but in that test they landed crabbed and there were cutters on the runway to open up the fuel tanks.They were shooting for a clean cut to allow for a "controlled" variable, but nonetheless, the antimisting jet-a didn't really work.

Didn't watch the special, but did they land this 727 with dry tanks or something?



Believe it or not, no. They had about 8000 lbs in the wings and interestingly the engines went to WFO after it settled.

You could hear them spool up and see the jet exhaust blasting dirt behind the plane. The firefighters shot water into the engines to stall them. Interesting show.


One thing they came away with was designing a break away nose gear. That was responsible for tearing the front section of the fuselage from the plane.


1. There were no underwing engines to be sheared off and ths break up the wings and tanks spilling fuel everywhere.
2. Given the sand, they should have laded gear up to prevent the shearing forces from the gear digging into the sand.
 
2012-10-12 05:57:58 AM

lohphat: Enormous-Schwanstucker: Charlie Freak: Ivo Shandor: Charlie Freak: and there was a distinct lack of smoke and fire

You might prefer this 1984 NASA test of an experimental fuel additive that was supposed to prevent ignition in a crash. The key phrase being "supposed to"...

I had that in mind, but in that test they landed crabbed and there were cutters on the runway to open up the fuel tanks.They were shooting for a clean cut to allow for a "controlled" variable, but nonetheless, the antimisting jet-a didn't really work.

Didn't watch the special, but did they land this 727 with dry tanks or something?



Believe it or not, no. They had about 8000 lbs in the wings and interestingly the engines went to WFO after it settled.

You could hear them spool up and see the jet exhaust blasting dirt behind the plane. The firefighters shot water into the engines to stall them. Interesting show.


One thing they came away with was designing a break away nose gear. That was responsible for tearing the front section of the fuselage from the plane.

1. There were no underwing engines to be sheared off and ths break up the wings and tanks spilling fuel everywhere.
2. Given the sand, they should have laded gear up to prevent the shearing forces from the gear digging into the sand.



Good points. There were very concerned the engines would ingest something and grenade as that would have meant a total loss of data. One of them also commented the soil surface which had a soft crust on top of a harder layer would be ideal for upsetting the structural integrity of the plane. It sort of worked.
 
2012-10-12 12:15:51 PM
One thing they came away with was designing a break away nose gear. That was responsible for tearing the front section of the fuselage from the plane.

This. For some reason, the 727 had break-away rear gear, but not the nose. That caused the nose section to tear away.

Slapmastered

I defer to your knowledge, sir.
 
2012-10-12 10:10:47 PM
I can't stand "concerned newsguy voice".
 
2012-10-12 10:42:14 PM
Were any of the dummies molested by mannequins of TSA goons prior to installation?
 
2012-10-13 07:28:49 AM
Bracing is all well and good, but what you really need is the inflight magazine.

Sorry, couldn't find a clip.

KRYTEN: Good god! Emergency, emergency! Adopt crash procedure!
RIMMER: (Runs back to rear compartment.) Where's the card? Who's got the card?!
LISTER: What card?
RIMMER: The plastic card, the plastic card with the cartoons of the crash procedure on it!
LISTER: Don't panic, man!
RIMMER: It should be in the netting behind the seats. Haven't we got to sit behind a woman clutching a baby? What's the drill?!
LISTER: Look, I know what is it!
RIMMER: What?
LISTER: Sit down, tuck your head between your legs and brace yourself.
RIMMER: (Bracing) Now what?
LISTER: Then you open the in-flight magazine and start reading. Thing is, the articles act as a sedative. I mean, look at this: "Contents List: Salt, an Epicure's Delight; Classic Wines of Estonia; Flemish Weaving the Traditional Way." (To the CAT, whose head is lolling) Don't fight it, man, let it take you.
RIMMER: How can you be so mind-bogglingly flippant? Don't you know what's going to happen? We're going to crash!
LISTER: You've got to stay calm! It's a well-known fact, the more relaxed you are, the less likely you are to be injured.
KRYTEN: Good luck, everybody, here it comes!

ACE's ship strikes Starbug a glancing blow.

LISTER: (Reading) The ancient Egyptians were great believers in salt.
CAT: (Reading) When most people think of classic wines, they are unlikely to consider the Estonian reds, yet Estonian grapes are among the fruitiest and most subtle.
RIMMER: (Reading) Since the beginning of the 13th century, Belgium has been the home of some of the most remarkable weaving to come out of northwest Europe.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report