Too fat to fly

[Plavt]

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.

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. 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.

[Saint]

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!

[x9200]

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.

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

[sundaymorningstaple]

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. Statistically, 98.3% of Statistics are incorrect anyway.

[Plavt]

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.

[x9200]

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?

[Strong Eagle]

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]

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.

[x9200]

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]

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.

[x9200]

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.

[SunWuKong]

Statistically, 98.3% of Statistics are incorrect anyway.

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.

[nakatago]

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]

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..

[sundaymorningstaple]

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....