Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
'Plane Crash' On Channel 4  
User currently offlineferengi80 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 692 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not sure if anyone saw the programme 'Plane Crash' on Channel 4 last week. If you did, what did you think?

The basic gist of the programme was that An international team of scientists, experts and elite pilots deliberately crash land a 170-seat Boeing 727 passenger jet to study the mechanics of a plane crash.

I thought it interesting, but was surprised they flew the aircraft with an empty hold. Surely if you want to recreate a realistic crash, you need to recreate the situation? I also thought it interesting that the fuselage only fractured forward of the wings. I honestly expected the rear section to sepereate as well, but this remained attached to the rest of the fuselage.

You can see the programme in it's entirety here: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-plane-crash/4od


AF1981 LHR-CDG A380-800 10 July 2010 / AF1980 CDG-LHR A380-800 11 July 2010
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On TV Now - The Plane Crash - Channel 4 (UK) (by gilesdavies Oct 11 2012 in Civil Aviation)

User currently onlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1632 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2755 times:

Also, I'm sure I'm missing something by asking this, but is there any particular reason they went through all the trouble of rigging the plane up for radio control? If it were me, I'd just set the A/P for a 1500fpm descent in vertical speed mode and GTFO using the ventral stairs. Is there anything about the 727's autopilot that would prevent this?


B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently onlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2036 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting N243NW (Reply 2):

I think it was to simulate the plane landing short of the runway still under command by the pilots, not just CFIT. My   



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17038 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Quoting N243NW (Reply 2):

Also, I'm sure I'm missing something by asking this, but is there any particular reason they went through all the trouble of rigging the plane up for radio control? If it were me, I'd just set the A/P for a 1500fpm descent in vertical speed mode and GTFO using the ventral stairs. Is there anything about the 727's autopilot that would prevent this?

Safety I would guess. With radio control you can change stuff on the fly. With the A/P if something doesn't go to plan you can't change the trajectory.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4):
Safety I would guess. With radio control you can change stuff on the fly. With the A/P if something doesn't go to plan you can't change the trajectory.

Add to that they didn't increase rate of descent until after the pilot (and Elvis) had left the aircraft. That was tricky enough at a normal glidepath angle. Selecting -1500 fpm VS and then trying to get up the aisle to the tail to escape would have been "sporty" to say the least.

Rather than pitching down, it might have been better to reduce thrust to idle at a predetermined height calculated to result in 1500 fpm impact, and thus impacted in a more typical nose up attitude.

However what amazed me was that having spent all that money on the project they compromised it with a hobbyist style R/C set up with only 50m range. I realise using the radio inside an aircraft reduced the range but surely better equipment could have been found or perhaps external aerials rigged. They lost control before impact because of the range limitation and the aircraft hit nose first which could have compromised the result.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This was asked in an interview w/some of the tech crew for the experiment.

The answer given was they were not allowed to modify the aircraft (as doing so would require re-certification), so they were forced to use off-the-shelf model airplane controllers, and tape the antennas to the insides of the windows.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

at least one guy was a fedex pilot and skydiver

User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2020 times:

Quoting Litz (Reply 6):
The answer given was they were not allowed to modify the aircraft (as doing so would require re-certification), so they were forced to use off-the-shelf model airplane controllers, and tape the antennas to the insides of the windows.

I'm not convinced about this. After all, they modified the aircraft internally by connecting servos to the control cables. I was involved in a flight testing programme where a civil aircraft was modified for testing, including adding an external drogue and drilling holes in the radome for air data sensors. No recertification was required, but there was a requirement that the aircraft must be returned to original condition before it could go back into service.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 'Plane Crash' On Channel 4
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Crash On TakeOff -Contamination Of Wing By Ice posted Tue Sep 4 2012 13:31:11 by whiplash
Idea To Survive Any Plane Crash posted Wed Sep 17 2008 09:51:02 by KSBD
Buddy Holly Plane Crash posted Tue Nov 7 2006 08:24:07 by Jcavinato
Keeping The Plane Straight On Takeoff And Landing? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 03:29:34 by SuseJ772
How Does A Stranded Plane Get Back On The Tarmac? posted Fri Nov 4 2011 00:50:10 by YokoTsuno
Identity Of Plane On Radar Screens posted Sat Jun 18 2011 06:53:51 by contrails67
Solar Panels On Plane Roofs? posted Wed Mar 23 2011 15:05:30 by alasdair1982
Avionics Upgrade On 50 Y/o GA Plane, Ideas? posted Sat Nov 27 2010 15:14:06 by Fly2HMO
Slowest Plane On Take-off Roll? posted Mon Sep 14 2009 07:44:37 by September11
Which Plane Used LHR - JFK On UA0904/0905? posted Mon Jul 27 2009 05:28:58 by Pickett

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format