Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Safest Seat On A380?  
User currently offlineHawker From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 105 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10850 times:

As a general rule the safest seats on an airliner are at the rear, so the rest of the airframe absorbs most of the energy from a crash.

With the A380 would you be better off at the rear top or bottom? I would think the upper deck would more likely survive collision damage, but on the other hand getting to the ground might be virtually impossible if the extra long slides for the upper level either malfunctioned, or sent you at high speed onto the tarmac, or twisted and dumped you over the side.

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWunala From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10830 times:

Can we wait for it to fly, before you have it crashing on us?  Smile

User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7965 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10757 times:

Quoting Hawker (Thread starter):
As a general rule the safest seats on an airliner are at the rear,

Forget it.
There is no such thing like "the safest seat on an airliner".



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineSquirrel83 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10746 times:

Flight Deck, Or I wouldnt mind a window seat just past the Wing~

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10731 times:

Quoting Wunala (Reply 1):
Can we wait for it to fly, before you have it crashing on us?

Yeah....Let it Fly.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10568 times:

As somebody already said, there is no "safest seat" in an airliner. It always depends on what happens.

User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17115 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10553 times:

Quoting Hawker (Thread starter):
As a general rule the safest seats on an airliner are at the rear, so the rest of the airframe absorbs most of the energy from a crash.

As has been said, this is not true. In statistical terms, all the seats are about equally safe. Not really a lot of crashes to give us data on relative safety.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineWunala From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10525 times:

All seats must have the same probability of safety, otherwise the Y cabin would be at the front and F and J down the back. Afterall you want to give your hi rev pax the best chance. What airline would deliberately try to hurt premium pax?

User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10417 times:

Quoting Hawker (Thread starter):
As a general rule the safest seats on an airliner are at the rear, so the rest of the airframe absorbs most of the energy from a crash.

It's not just a statistical fallacy it's also rubbish in physics terms. An aircraft isn't like a car with a crumple-zone. A high-speed impact generates a destructive shockwave which travels rapidly through the airframe and anything (fittings, seats, people) attached to it.


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24961 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10401 times:

Obviously The ejection seat  bigthumbsup 


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineDIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1818 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10371 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 9):
Obviously The ejection seat

Which one? Isn't it possible to eject on all seats?
 Wink



Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10358 times:

4A on a 744.

dtwclipper


User currently offlineBirdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3830 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10354 times:

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 10):
Obviously The ejection seat

Isn't that what a JUMP SEAT is for?  Smile



All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5913 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10227 times:

Which seat is the safest for an A380 flight?

The one attached to the floor in the terminal.

(preparing to be flamed)

Actually, several of you are incorrect in saying that statistically they're all the same. Statistically, the safest seats are in the rear, toward the center. That idea also stands up to the laws of physics. The accelerations exerted on the bodies in the rear are lower than those accelerations encountered in the front, as the structure collapses and absorbs much of the energy. That's assuming you hit something while traveling forward, which in an airplane, you are likely to be doing.
Granted, there are infinite variables. But that statistic comes from somewhere, it's not arbitrary. Most crash survivors are sitting in the rear of the airplane, regardless of variables.
Look it up on the Net, I am sure you'll find some credible things that can explain it and prove it better than I.


User currently offlineWingnutMN From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 651 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10224 times:

I thought that the seats over the wing were the safest due to the reinforcement of the airframe for the wings? I would definitely choose the right seat. best view with the least amount of responsibility! Remember the old addage.....3 Bars equal "I Don't Know, and I Don't Care" where 4 bars equal "I Need To Know, and I Need To Care"

WingnutMN



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17115 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10082 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 13):

Actually, several of you are incorrect in saying that statistically they're all the same. Statistically, the safest seats are in the rear, toward the center.

No, because any good statistician will tell you that the sample sizes are too small to make any meaningful conclusions. The aircraft and the accidents are all very different and there are too few accidents total for good statistics.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10021 times:

Quoting Hawker (Thread starter):
As a general rule the safest seats on an airliner are at the rear, so the rest of the airframe absorbs most of the energy from a crash.

Dude, that is a myth. If the plane were in a nose dive, you would simply die last. No airplane in the world is designed to absorb crash energy, they all fold like foil under a brick. Considering g-forces and duration, your seat might disengage and you'd be thrown forwards.

Quoting Wunala (Reply 7):
otherwise the Y cabin would be at the front and F and J down the back

pax pay more for more conviniences, one example being not having to walk all the way to the back of the plane for your seat. Nothing to do with who is safer.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10004 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 16):
Dude, that is a myth. If the plane were in a nose dive, you would simply die last. No airplane in the world is designed to absorb crash energy, they all fold like foil under a brick. Considering g-forces and duration, your seat might disengage and you'd be thrown forwards.

It's not a myth, you're just applying it to the worst case scenario. Of course no one survives a nose-first dive. However, if you run off the runway during an emergency landing and impact stationary objects, certain parts of the plane will have higher survivability factors than others, and generally the further back you are (assuming no fire) the more physics is on your side. That said, the weakest link and break points in the fuselage could work against you as well, but the premise of what he is saying is correct. If you hit a concrete building at 60 knots, I'd rather be near the tail than the cockpit.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9961 times:

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 17):
If you hit a concrete building at 60 knots, I'd rather be near the tail than the cockpit.

Statistics show most accidents occur during the takeoff or landing sequence and they are usually above 60kts. Just like in a car, 120-knot impact is four-times as great as a 60-knoter. You may be injured but and may not be dead.

What was that Delta L-1011 that crashed in the 80's in the US, the plane landing prior to the runway in the fog and only the rear survived?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9905 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 18):
Statistics show most accidents occur during the takeoff or landing sequence and they are usually above 60kts. Just like in a car, 120-knot impact is four-times as great as a 60-knoter. You may be injured but and may not be dead.

What was that Delta L-1011 that crashed in the 80's in the US, the plane landing prior to the runway in the fog and only the rear survived?

That's my point though. His statement isn't a myth, it's just that it doesn't apply to most accident scenarios where the accident happens well outside the boundaries of reasonable survivability. At that point, it's all irrelevant.

HOWEVER, if you're in a situation like UAL 232 (the DC-10 that crash landed after it lost hydraulics in '89) there's still a real survivability difference in different parts of the plane. Of course, you can't calculate all the factors very well, espc with the fire component. Being behind the wings and engines on a loaded plane that catches fire isn't a good place to be, for example...



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9889 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 13):
The accelerations exerted on the bodies in the rear are lower than those accelerations encountered in the front, as the structure collapses and absorbs much of the energy. That's assuming you hit something while traveling forward, which in an airplane, you are likely to be doing.

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 17):
Of course no one survives a nose-first dive. However, if you run off the runway during an emergency landing and impact stationary objects, certain parts of the plane will have higher survivability factors than others, and generally the further back you are (assuming no fire) the more physics is on your side.

Picking up on what Backfire and Lehpron have said, aircraft aren't designed to dissipate impact forces in a controlled way - they aren't designed in the same way a car is designed, to absorb energy throughout the vehicle thereby keeping the passenger cabin intact. When a car suffers a frontal collision, the forward bodywork crumples in and the engine hopefully doesn't penetrate the firewall - result: the survival cell (the passenger cabin) remains uncompromised. When an airliner crashes, simplistically assuming that it hits a wall/ground/mountainside nose-first, there aren't built-in ways for the impact energy to dissipate and protect the passengers. There's no crumple zone in the nosecone, and crash forces will be transmitted forcibly along the fuselage. Hence the passengers are screwed, to a certain extent wherever they're sitting. Similarly, if the aircraft suffers a severe belly landing instead, impact forces will propagate upwards through the fuselage in a destructive manner.

Remember that Austrian Fokker 70 that landed short of the runway at Munich in January? There was very little fuselage deformation, visibly at least. In contrast, after a car crash the vehicle is significantly deformed so as to minimise forces on its occupants.

The safest seat in a car, at least when you're siting a child seat, is arguably in the middle of the back seat. Not so in an aircraft.

Rich

[Edited 2005-04-20 20:54:49]

User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9865 times:

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 19):
HOWEVER, if you're in a situation like UAL 232 (the DC-10 that crash landed after it lost hydraulics in '89) there's still a real survivability difference in different parts of the plane. Of course, you can't calculate all the factors very well, espc with the fire component. Being behind the wings and engines on a loaded plane that catches fire isn't a good place to be, for example...

I'd suggest that a differing survivability in an accident like UAL 232 is down to factors other than the seemingly obvious "sit at the back for a softer deceleration". In the event the DC-10 cartwheeled violently and consequently broke apart, so this argument was instantly made irrelevant. It may have been that passengers seated at the fuselage break points were those more likely to perish - or on the other hand, they might have benefited from being ejected from the wreckage. Maybe. Where you're sitting relative to where the plane is breaking apart, and where fire is about to engulf you, is far more relevant than where you are in relation to the aircraft's non-crumple zone.

Rich

[Edited 2005-04-20 20:59:22]

User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2458 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9843 times:

The seat closest to the "black" box.  Wink


Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9817 times:

Quoting RedDragon (Reply 21):
Where you're sitting relative to where the plane is breaking apart, and where fire is about to engulf you, is far more relevant than where you are in relation to the aircraft's non-crumple zone.

Which is why I said you can't calculate all the factors...however, in a typical runway overshoot (abort above V1, landing too far down the runway...both of which happened with some regularity, in terms of accidents) you have a linear path the plane follows, and most of the damage is absorbed by the front of the fuselage, and the wings.

Again, I'm not saying it's worth pretending there's a "safer" seat on the plane you can pick out for yourself...it's just the academic exercise of pointing out that given some specific scenarios, you can say which areas of the plane are statistically safer than others. Now if you could pick your accident scenario, I'd pick "none"........  Smile



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5260 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9808 times:

The safest seat is the one who takes you from A to B, in one piece...

25 Post contains images Starlionblue : As the comedian once said: "So the black box is built to survive a crash. Why don't they build the whole plane out of that stuff?!?"
26 Boeing7E7 : The only guaranteed safe seat is in a folding chair outside the runway safety area for any aircraft. Then again, you could fall out of that too.
27 Starlionblue : Yeah but then who would you sue?
28 Post contains images Lemurs : Oh that's easy. The maker of the folding chair, for not putting in restraints to protect you from yourself! You forget, we're American, so we learn t
29 Boeing7E7 : 1. The chair maker. 2. The guy that owns the land.
30 Post contains images Starlionblue : I'd still try for the manufacturer of the plane that startled me
31 Prebennorholm : The statistics are clear concerning the safest seat on any plane, not just the 380. Sitting on the wingtip it the safest. Nobody ever got hurt sitting
32 Prebennorholm : Better sue the descendants of Sir Isac Newton as well. After all he was responcible for the Law of Gravity which made the chair collapse.
33 Post contains images SWISSER : yeah! I think too those are the safest!
34 Post contains images SWISSER :
35 September11 : safest seat? the toilet in rear lavatory! just kidding ... there is no guarantee on which seat is the safest ... on a Greyhound bus, there is no such
36 ComeAndGo : That's why the rear restroom is the safest place to be in an aircraft.
37 AirxLiban : There are two equally safe seats on an aircraft...the pilot's and copilot's seat in the simulator.
38 Fbm3rd : cloest seat to...how about putting me in that mug...
39 BaylorAirBear : Mmm, Breast milk. BaylorAirBear
40 Post contains links Bassie2010 : For safety on aircraft, visit www.airsafe.com. Best website there is on air safety. Founded by a former Boeing safety analyst, Todd Curtis. He also wr
41 Post contains images GQfluffy : The seat you were sitting in at the gate before you boarded that cow. fluffy
42 Jafa39 : You would sue the govt for not having legistlation in place to prevent you having to take personal responsibility for your own safety..no, wait you'd
43 MD-90 : Actually, some GA planes are designed with crash-worthiness in mind. Specifically, the Cirrus planes were designed with two features relevant to this
44 Starlionblue : Home of such weak statistical analysis as his "Fatal Events by Airline". As I said before, sample sizes under 30 do not good statistics make.[Edited
45 Jafa39 : But it is possible to extract an emerging paradigm.
46 Starlionblue : How emerging is it if there are so few events, and all the events are so different? You can hardly compare an loss due to engine explosion (DC-10 at
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Safest Seat On A Plane posted Fri Sep 26 2003 06:29:20 by VS340
Dec 2006 Popular Mechanics Article On A380 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 22:12:07 by Mymorningsong
Thai Airways Warns On A380 & Alitalia Partnership posted Fri Nov 17 2006 12:09:31 by Singapore_Air
EK's Tim Clark On A380: "We Need That Aircraft" posted Tue Nov 7 2006 23:15:42 by PlaneHunter
Mike Boyd On A380 And 737 Successor posted Tue Oct 31 2006 18:23:46 by Lumberton
Discovery Ch. Special On A380 posted Sun Oct 22 2006 18:33:50 by BigJimFX
Singapore Airlines Statement On A380 Delays posted Wed Oct 4 2006 07:22:17 by Singapore_Air
Lufthansa´s Mayrhuber On A380, 747-8 And B787/A350 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 10:54:16 by Keesje
Lufthansa On A380 Delays, Confidence In Airbus.. posted Fri Sep 22 2006 09:48:58 by Keesje
Question On A380 Program posted Mon Sep 4 2006 18:46:06 by DTWAGENT