|
|
[ anon7994 @ 20.02.2005. 14:15 ] @
|
| Improving Your Odds of Walking Away From a Plane Crash
The Wall Street Journal Online
By Scott McCartney
Airplane accidents evoke a particular kind of dread -- not only are they terrifying, they also often look unsurvivable.
But the fact is that a majority of people walk away from even the most fiery crashes. Last month, 11 people survived a corporate-jet crash and fire in Teterboro, N.J., in which the plane skidded across a highway before smashing into a warehouse.
Broadly speaking, the numbers are compelling. From 1983 to 2000, the National Transportation Safety Board investigated 26 major commercial accidents involving 2,739 people. A total of 1,525 survived, or 56%.
Considerable research has gone into making plane crashes more survivable, which has led to a number of changes. For instance, the now-familiar floor lighting, which is intended to help passengers find the exits if a cabin fills with smoke. Newer airplanes also have stronger seats, designed to stay bolted down against crash forces.
More improvements are coming, says David Palmerton, the Federal Aviation Administration's expert on protection and survival. For instance, researchers are looking for fire-blocking materials that could be used in insulation of airplanes that could give passengers precious additional seconds to escape rapidly advancing jet-fuel fires.
Partly as a result of improvements like these, surviving a crash isn't necessarily a matter of fate. However, passengers can take a number of steps to increase the odds of walking away unharmed. "The flying public thinks if you're in an accident, you're going to die. So you don't need to know what to do, and don't pay attention to the briefing or read the safety card," Mr. Palmerton says. "Nothing could be further from the truth."
The FAA conducts extensive testing at a laboratory in Oklahoma City on airplane seats, evacuation techniques and other important aspects of crash survival. U.S. and British researchers have been examining crashes for years to see what helps get people out of planes that crash with the hull more or less intact, and what hinders evacuation and results in deaths even when travelers survive the impact of a crash.
Planes could be a lot safer if we faced backward rather than forward, for example. Sideways seating on corporate-jet couches, by the way, is terrible for crash survival, Mr. Palmerton says, resulting in serious neck injuries.
Short of smarter seating, here are some tips for travelers.
Count how many rows there are between you and emergency exits, both in front of you and behind you. The counting helps in case smoke or darkness makes it tough to see clearly.
I went through the FAA's smoke-demonstration program -- where an old airplane hull is filled with theatrical smoke -- and it will make a row-counter out of you. Smoke collects quickly at the ceiling of a plane, and comes down to blanket you within seconds. Hunched over, it's easy to lose track of where you are.
Use the "crash position" and brace for impact. Coach seating these days doesn't give most of us enough room to get our head between our knees. But an alternative is to put your head in your hands and lean against the seat in front of you. "It works," says Mr. Palmerton. "You're hitting the seat whether you want to or not."
Leave your luggage. As absurd as it sounds, fire-truck videos of real-life emergency evacuations show passengers going down slides clutching belongings -- even when the plane is on fire. Smoke can fill a plane in seconds; spend that time getting out, not getting your carry-ons.
Stay low and breathe slowly. Hunched over works best if you can (if you crawl, you might get trampled). And know that breathing aircraft-fire smoke is going to hurt; the slower you breathe, the better.
Get through exits quickly, but one at a time. Doors are small, particularly the exits over the wings; they can easily become clogged with bodies, with deadly consequences.
Don't worry about taking your shoes off. That no longer is necessary since the plastic used in evacuation slides is tougher and can resist rips better these days.
Help at the bottom of a slide if you can. Flight attendants typically ask able-bodied volunteers to assist sliding passengers. Having someone help you up and move you out prevents piles of people at the bottom -- a frequent problem in evacuations -- and makes it easier for scared passengers to jump. Videos of real emergency evacuations repeatedly show that volunteers wait only so long before running off themselves.
The biggest threat in a survivable crash is fire. Jet fuel (essentially, kerosene) burns very hot at 1,500°, hotter than the melting point of aluminum. In addition, materials used in manufacturing airplanes give off toxic smoke, so the fuselage can become a deadly gas chamber in as little as 90 seconds. Just as quickly, heat can become so intense that a "flashover" occurs, where the entire cabin explodes in instantaneous combustion.
Bottom line: Get out quickly. To be certified, a commercial airliner has to have enough exits to get a full load of passengers out within 90 seconds, using only half of the doors.
Mr. Palmerton says researchers have found that there are four main factors that determine whether an evacuation will be fast or slow. First, the configuration of the plane matters -- the size of the exits, how densely seats are packed on the plane, whether there's a bottleneck at the front, for example.
Curiously, research now shows that the width of exit rows doesn't matter. In fact, a wider exit row may cause trouble during an evacuation, because it's wide enough for two people to try to get out at once -- causing a jam.
Currently, the standard width for an exit row is 20 inches, but Mr. Palmerton predicts that eventually regulations will revert back to the old standard, 13 inches.
In addition, the experience and training of the crew matters in rapid evacuations, and the environment matters: evacuations are slower at night or in the rain.
The fourth factor is dubbed "biobehavior," and hinges on the sex, age, experience and physical and mental state of passengers. Panic can be deadly if people fight to get out, or freeze up and sit.
In 1984, a Pacific Western 737 had a engine failure that spewed white-hot parts and led to an intense fire in Calgary, Canada, with 119 onboard. There were no fatalities -- partly because, Mr. Palmerton says, 75% of passengers were frequent fliers who knew the plane and the exits. There were no handicapped travelers, elderly passengers or children on board.
A year later, a British Airtours charter to Greece had a similar engine failure and fire on takeoff from Manchester, England. Of 137 people on board, 55 died. Panicky passengers clogged a narrow aisle, producing gridlock.
-----
SURVIVING AN ACCIDENT
Know the exits in front of you and behind -- and count how many rows away they are.
Brace for impact: Head against seat in front of you. It works.
Leave your luggage. No laptop is worth dying for.
Stay low; breath slowly.
Don't stop to take your shoes off. Slides are tougher these days.
|
[ H@usto® @ 20.02.2005. 17:23 ] @
Daj coveche, izbegavaj da pises ovako duge postove. Mislis da neko ima strpljenja da cita ovoliko?
[ m4rk0 @ 20.02.2005. 17:40 ] @
@H@usto®
Zasto da ne pise ?! Evo ja sam procitao cao tekst jer sam ja zlatan decko :P
Zezam se, nisam ni poceo da citam :P. 'Oce mi neko dati siže ovoga teksta :) ?
[ Marenović Slaviša @ 20.02.2005. 17:41 ] @
Ti nisi cuo za nasu stjuardesu koja je prezivela pad sa ... koliko ono bese metara?
Nekoliko hiljada metara? Jedina prezivela nesrecu...
[ Burgos @ 20.02.2005. 17:50 ] @
Citat: Marenović Slaviša: Ti nisi cuo za nasu stjuardesu koja je prezivela pad sa ... koliko ono bese metara?
Nekoliko hiljada metara? Jedina prezivela nesrecu...
... koja nosi Kosmodisk :) [ flylord @ 20.02.2005. 18:06 ] @
Pala je sa 11000m. Bila je u zadnjem delu aviona, i kolko se secam, avion je oboren raketom  [ Mitrović Srđan @ 20.02.2005. 18:10 ] @
aaa j sam gledo neki dan liq je pao iz aviona i upo kroz neki krov :)
[ m4rk0 @ 20.02.2005. 18:21 ] @
@blood
Jedan lik iz 63. padobranske je padao 9 puta sa visine od oko 1000m i vise !!!. Znaci coveku se devet puta nije otvorio padobran ! Covek i dan danas skace !!! Zadnji put je skakao sa visine od 1500m i naravno nije mu se otvorio padobran i probio krov jedne kuce i lepo covek spakovao padobran i otisao bez povrede kao da se nista nije desilo. To je taj lik !
[ hakinen @ 20.02.2005. 18:38 ] @
Ih bre!!! Jel to samo prica za tog coveka ili je to stvarno!!! Kako se on zove, jel ima zvanicno negde text o njemu???
[ UroS @ 20.02.2005. 18:45 ] @
Jeste, betmen.
[ SBSL @ 20.02.2005. 19:02 ] @
Betmen ili Supermen..! 
Ma gde si citao to, to je bre nemoguce.. [ shadowgirl @ 20.02.2005. 19:40 ] @
wow...o cemu vi razmisljate... pa kad se to desi onda ti nema pomoci, jedino ako si bas extremno srecan ces da prezivis...to sve zavisi od okolnosti..:)
[ Mobtel @ 20.02.2005. 19:54 ] @
Ja mislim da sam gledao emisiju sa tim likom na rts ona voditeljka sto je prebegla sa bk na rts
[ Nabukodonosor @ 20.02.2005. 20:00 ] @
Mislim da je tekst cista glupost, no offence, jer kada avion padne sa npr. 10KM, pri tome eksplodira zajedno sa ne znam ni ja koliko tona kerozina, i raspadne se na sitne delove po povrsini od nekoliko desetina kvadratnih kilometara, tesko ce ti pomoci sto si spustio glavu izmedju nogu i disao duboko. Mislim, smesno.
[ Mitrović Srđan @ 20.02.2005. 20:30 ] @
Citat: UroS: Jeste, betmen.
na ku* te metnem :))).sala
nego bre da to je taj liq
emisija se zove KljUC i emituje se na RTS1.
kao sta je tu nemoguce ne kapiram [ m4rk0 @ 20.02.2005. 20:41 ] @
Citat: blood:....kao sta je tu nemoguce ne kapiram
I ja se pitam sta je nemoguce....Covek imao nevidjenu srecu i to je to...
BTW: Otkud betmen u 63. padobranskoj :p ? [ Ivan Dimkovic @ 20.02.2005. 20:47 ] @
Tekst uopste nije glupost - najmanji broj nesreca se desava dok je avion u "cruising" modu - dakle na punoj visini. Ako doista avion i dozivi nesrecu na 10KM visini, obicno nece ni docekati zemlju u jednom komadu, a i ako doceka, par mikrosekundi posle pada ce verovatno biti rasut u 1000 komadica - pa tekst tu ne donosi nikakvu pomoc ;)
Vrlo veliki broj nesreca se ipak desava pri poletanju ili priblizavanju aerodromu, kada je pilot i dalje u stanju da eventualno prizemlji avion na pistu ili van nje, ali uz vrlo cest pozar (nemogucnost izbacivanja stajnog trapa, sletanje van piste, problem sa elektrikom/motorom, itd..). Tada je vise nego neophodno optimizovati proces evakuacije putnika inace dolazi do zagusenja i nasilne smrti ljudi koji su zatvoreni u "gasnoj komori" - ima slucajeva kada je izginulo na desetine putnika u avionu koji nije ni poleteo - samo zbog loseg procesa evakuacije.
Istini za volju, ukupan broj smrtnih slucajeva tokom avio prevoza u svetu je izuzetno nizak, mozda par stotina putnika (450 u 2004) na preko 1.5 milijardu prevezenih putnika, i to obicno vecina tih nesreca jesu teroristicki napadi i u nekim bantu zemljama, pa je razloga za brigu ipak vrlo malo - daleko je veca verovatnoca da se izgine u autobusu/vozu/kolima.
@edit - ko leti JAT-om, a paranoican je - B737-300, red 10, sedista A-F, B737-400 redovi 11 i 12, sedista A-F su "emergency exit" - a, u svakom slucaju, mnogo je veci prostor za noge nego u ostatku ekonomske klase, poor man's business class :) Pa trazite ta mesta pri checkiranju karte ;-)
[ Marko_L @ 20.02.2005. 21:52 ] @
Baš htedoh da kažem, ali me Ivan preteče.Taj text nije ni namenjen nesrećnicima koji se nađu u avionu, koji u momentu odleti u param parčad, već za one koji se nađu u avionu prilikom nasilnog spuštanja ili kvara pri poletanju, kada ima nešto vremena pre nego što se avion napuni gasom i/ili eksplodira, kako bi sačuvali prisebnost i na najbrži i najefikasniji mogući način napustili letelicu.
[ ventura @ 20.02.2005. 22:01 ] @
Citat: Ivan Dimkovic:
@edit - ko leti JAT-om, a paranoican je - B737-300, red 10, sedista A-F, B737-400 redovi 11 i 12, sedista A-F su "emergency exit" - a, u svakom slucaju, mnogo je veci prostor za noge nego u ostatku ekonomske klase, poor man's business class :) Pa trazite ta mesta pri checkiranju karte ;-)
Znas foru :)
Ta mesta uvek trazim kada idem na duge letove :) [ salec @ 21.02.2005. 00:38 ] @
Hmm, možda bi bilo najbolje kada bi piloti aviona pri prinudnom sletanju imali mogućnost da katapultiraju krila (rezervoare) ili da odbace motore sa njih (vrući delovi - izvor vatre) na bezbedan način.
Ili, kada bi sa donje strane postojao "airbag" stajni trap.
Naravno, sve to bi bile stalne potencijalne opasnosti u situacijama kada NE treba da se aktiviraju. Ali, ako mogu vojni piloti da lete sedeći na eksplozivnim punjenjima (stolicama za katapultiranje), zašto ne bi civili leteli na mašinama koje su u stanju da odbace krila?
[ CimBac @ 21.02.2005. 01:22 ] @
Citat: možda bi bilo najbolje kada bi piloti aviona pri prinudnom sletanju imali mogućnost da katapultiraju krila (rezervoare) ili da odbace motore sa njih (vrući delovi - izvor vatre)
Odbace krila i padnu gde? meni na glavu :) [ ventura @ 21.02.2005. 07:37 ] @
Citat: salec: Hmm, možda bi bilo najbolje kada bi piloti aviona pri prinudnom sletanju imali mogućnost da katapultiraju krila (rezervoare) ili da odbace motore sa njih (vrući delovi - izvor vatre) na bezbedan način.
Da odbace krila... Kad? Na 500 metara pred sletanje? :) Kako ce onda da upravljaju avionom, kako ce spreciti da se avion ne 'prizemlji' (bolje reci ne padne), naopako?
Nije to nikakvo resenje... Piloti vec danas, cak i pri normalnom sletanju imaju tacno propisano sa koliko goriva u rezervoarima smeju da slecu... Ukoliko im ostane vise goriva oni to gorivo moraju da ispuste... Tako se radi i pri prinudnim sletanjima - ispusta se visak goriva tako da se rezervoari skroz isprazne... [ Ivan Dimkovic @ 21.02.2005. 08:44 ] @
Mozda su jedno od resenja za gubitak kontrole na visini padobrani za stabilizaciju - koji se inace koriste prilikom testiranja aviona u ranim fazama.
Ne znam zasto se oni ne koriste za velike civilne avione (koriste se za manje i, naravno, vojne) - mora da postoji neki razlog (mozda dolazi do strukturalne stete ako se aktiviraju, pa se avion prosto raspadne)
[ salec @ 21.02.2005. 10:31 ] @
Citat: ventura: Da odbace krila... Kad? Na 500 metara pred sletanje? :)
Zapravo, ako ih uhvati plamen ili postoji velika verovatnoca da ih uhvati plamen, a to bi bilo neposredno po touchdown-u, na pisti.
No, svejedno, da bi punjenje moglo da da dovoljno ubrzanje masivnim krilima, moralo bi da bude toliko jako da bi trup sigurno nastradao (i putnici u njemu), tako da ta ideja svakako ne valja...
[ zaraza @ 21.02.2005. 10:36 ] @
Citat:
Jedan lik iz 63. padobranske je padao 9 puta sa visine od oko 1000m i vise !!!. Znaci coveku se devet puta nije otvorio padobran ! Covek i dan danas skace !!! Zadnji put je skakao sa visine od 1500m i naravno nije mu se otvorio padobran i probio krov jedne kuce i lepo covek spakovao padobran i otisao bez povrede kao da se nista nije desilo. To je taj lik !
ma daj bre...
to za 9 puta sigurno nije tacon, a ovo poslednji put kada je skakao imao je samo delimicni otkaz padobrana, znaci otvorio se ali ne kako treba, znam to iz prve ruke tako da :) [ stargatenow @ 21.02.2005. 11:11 ] @
Citat: Pala je sa 11000m. Bila je u zadnjem delu aviona, i kolko se secam, avion je oboren raketom
Tako je, raketom koju je greskom ispalila avijacija nama tada prijateljske zemlje, pa su okrivljene Ustase. Ali avion nije eksplodirao u vazduhu i pao ko' sekira sa 11000 metara (tj. doticna laze) vec je pilot probao da prinudno sleti i pri sletanju su svi osim nje izginuli.
[ ghost2k3 @ 21.02.2005. 23:00 ] @
Cekaj kako neko moze da tresne 9 puta sa 1000m na zemlju i ostane ziv? Pa cak i u vodu da padne bilo bi diskutabilno.
[ JoeKuboj @ 21.02.2005. 23:47 ] @
Copyright (C) 2001-2024 by www.elitesecurity.org. All rights reserved.
|