Singapore Expats Forum

Too fat to fly

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

Plavt
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed, 18 May 2005
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Plavt » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 5:21 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:
What does being the pilot of a helicopter have to do with the fuel in the bell of a 747? :???:

And, if I cannot get a priority seat on an upgrade, I sit as far back in the tail as possible as generally, if it's a rough landing where the plane breaks up on landing, it's usually the safest place on the plane as, like you said, most of the fuel is in the belly/wing area. :wink:


Have you any idea just how ludicrous your post is? One would hope you having been a pilot would realize that where you sit more often than not makes little or no difference in a serious incident. Obviously you have not read many if any crash reports. [-X A factor that results in not a few being killed is; doors on a good number of aircraft open different from the conventional (i.e.: twisted, turned, pushed upwards). However, such facts as far as I am aware have not been widely broadcast.

What really matters is if the crew can control a fire should one break out and if they can land the aircraft safely, sitting at the tail won't help if a large airliner hits the ocean at high speed.

User avatar
Saint
Director
Director
Posts: 3535
Joined: Thu, 16 Jun 2005
Location: The Juban Stand, Boat Quay
Contact:

Postby Saint » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 5:30 pm

SunWuKong wrote:My apologies for being contrary SMS, but I've actually read that over the wing is statistically the safest place to be in a crash.


Sitting on top of one of the black boxes is the safest place! :cool:

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9160
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 5:54 pm

Plavt wrote:
sundaymorningstaple wrote:
What does being the pilot of a helicopter have to do with the fuel in the bell of a 747? :???:

And, if I cannot get a priority seat on an upgrade, I sit as far back in the tail as possible as generally, if it's a rough landing where the plane breaks up on landing, it's usually the safest place on the plane as, like you said, most of the fuel is in the belly/wing area. :wink:


Have you any idea just how ludicrous your post is? One would hope you

Of course it really does not matter if this is a serious accident and likely it is not really important as for the overall survivability rate but with my ever favourite statistical approach SMS seems to be right. I heard the same statement some time ago from NGC (popular aircrash investigation serie) but google also seems to think the same. Among many others:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 19452.html

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34258
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 6:32 pm

It's okay, Plavt got into this about a year ago as well. Kinda like a terrier with a knotted sock. Him and AlphabunchofnumbersSierra. I'd still rather take my chances in the rear of the plane while all in the center section are becoming flaming marshmellows. :cool: Statistically, 98.3% of Statistics are incorrect anyway. :mrgreen:

Plavt
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed, 18 May 2005
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Plavt » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 6:47 pm

x9200,
Instead of using google, I would suggest reading the crash reports from the aviation authorities from various countries, most are readily available. Sms's
supposition won't do much good when a fire ball rages from the front to the rear (e.g; SQ006). Try seeking out the 'crash' at Manchester involving a 737 too, I have quoted 'crash' as the plane never even left the ground, truth be told in a series incident you don't stand a chance.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9160
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 6:54 pm

Plavt wrote:x9200,
Instead of using google, I would suggest reading the crash reports from the aviation authorities from various countries, most are readily available. Sms's
supposition won't do much good when a fire ball rages from the front to the rear (e.g; SQ006). Try seeking out the 'crash' at Manchester involving a 737 too, I have quoted 'crash' as the plane never even left the ground, truth be told in a series incident you don't stand a chance.

Have you checked the link I posted?

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10405
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 8:05 pm

Hell... it's all a guess... and I think the wing area forward is definitely better than aft.

It's always the tail that comes off in a serious crash... often, it's what hits the ground first.

If you look at airplane crash photos, it is the fuselage over the wing are that stays intact... because the wing root is a serious piece of hardware.

Unless it is a crash at takeoff, fuel is either used or dumped prior to a crash landing.

Plavt
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed, 18 May 2005
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Plavt » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 8:06 pm

x9200 wrote:Have you checked the link I posted?


Yes, just the author's opinion in order to court readers or maybe offer false security, I don't which. Should a plane hit a mountain or disintegrate in mid air then where you sit won't make any difference case closed.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9160
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 8:22 pm

Plavt wrote:
x9200 wrote:Have you checked the link I posted?


Yes, just the author's opinion in order to court readers or maybe offer false security, I don't which. Should a plane hit a mountain or disintegrate in mid air then where you sit won't make any difference case closed.

It is based on NTSB crash reports. That's what they claim at least. Unless you question the authors reliability I it is done the way it should be done. I suppose you do not question NTSB reports.
I understand that we are talking only about a small fraction of those who actually managed to survive but this was clear right from the start. In that sense my point is rather academic.

Plavt
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed, 18 May 2005
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Plavt » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 8:53 pm

x9200 wrote:
Plavt wrote:
x9200 wrote:Have you checked the link I posted?


Yes, just the author's opinion in order to court readers or maybe offer false security, I don't which. Should a plane hit a mountain or disintegrate in mid air then where you sit won't make any difference case closed.

It is based on NTSB crash reports. That's what they claim at least. Unless you question the authors reliability I it is done the way it should be done. I suppose you do not question NTSB[.
I understand that we are talking only about a small fraction of those who actually managed to survive but this was clear right from the start. In that sense my point is rather academic.


I understand NTSB reports perfectly well and just because one author comes up with what is largely an opinion it makes no difference to the scenarios I mentioned but then I suppose you always have to try to prove your point.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9160
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Wed, 07 Apr 2010 9:26 pm

Plavt wrote:I understand NTSB reports perfectly well and just because one author comes up with what is largely an opinion it makes no difference to the scenarios I mentioned but then I suppose you always have to try to prove your point.

No, not really. I am just repeating myself. Right time to quit.

User avatar
SunWuKong
Regular
Regular
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue, 08 Sep 2009
Location: Sengkang
Contact:

Postby SunWuKong » Thu, 08 Apr 2010 8:23 am

sundaymorningstaple wrote::cool: Statistically, 98.3% of Statistics are incorrect anyway. :mrgreen:


:lol: Yeah I love this statistic as well. Although I think the version I throw in peoples faces was a paper I read about the conclusions of scientific papers being incorrect with high 95++% probability due to different kinds of intentional and unintentional bias. Incorrect in this context simply meaning that the conclusion differed factually or logically from the content and having nothing to do with absolute correctness or truth. Humans will be humans.

Does not make the content wrong, it just means that the abstract and conclusion should be largely ignored.

As for statistics, when something as simple as linear regression suffers from widespread misapplication and misinterpretation then the more complex statistical tools do not have a proverbial snow ball's chance in hell.
The nature of Monkey was ... irrepressible!

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:57 am

now, in a completely different and not to mention bizarre twist, thin woman removed from flight to make way for obese teen: Faux News

Guess which airline it was.

vivienshoshanna
Member
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri, 23 Jul 2010

Postby vivienshoshanna » Tue, 27 Jul 2010 1:54 pm

nakatago wrote:I just realized something. What if you sat next to someone who clearly fit on the seat (i.e. not fat) but had really large arm muscles (think bulging biceps)?


then as it is, be friendly.. judge them by how you knew them not just by looking at them..

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34258
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 27 Jul 2010 3:34 pm

vivienshoshanna wrote:
nakatago wrote:I just realized something. What if you sat next to someone who clearly fit on the seat (i.e. not fat) but had really large arm muscles (think bulging biceps)?


then as it is, be friendly.. judge them by how you knew them not just by looking at them..


I'm still watching.........

tic....toc....tic....toc....


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests