>> Why you have never been in a plane crash?
Because those who are in a plan crash are mostly dead?
Because those who are in a plan crash are mostly dead?
More seriously:
But for those unlucky enough to be involved in the small percent of fatal air accidents, what are the odds of survival if your plane does crash?
The NTSB says that despite more people flying than ever, the accident rate for commercial flights has remained the same for the last two decades, and the survivability rate is a high 95.7 percent.
The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) has also examined the survivability of aircraft accidents worldwide, estimating that 90 percent are survivable (no passengers died) or “technically survivable," where at least one occupant survives.
Most of those fatalities were a result of impact and fire-related factors including smoke inhalation after impact.
Of all the aircraft crashes that were counted as crashes by the NTB, many survived.
Where the death-by-implausible-circumstances clock starts ticking.
You’d be surprised:
> According to a study by the European Transport Safety Council, plane crashes technically have a 90% survivability rate, and this figure is increasing, largely thanks to modern aircraft design, which features enough exits to allow for a full passenger evacuation in around 90 seconds.
> Recent proof of plane crash survival came in October last year when a Boston-bound private plane taking off at Houston Executive Airport struck a fence and burst in flames. All 21 people onboard survived. In 2018, all 103 passengers survived a flaming plane crash in Mexico when strong winds brought down Aeromexico flight 2431.
https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/06/15/how-to-survive-a-...
Even in the case of Japan Airlines Flight 123 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_Flight_123) the pilots still had some degree of control over the plane after its tail was ripped off due to a structural failure leading to explosive decompression at cruising altitude which also caused a total loss of all hydraulic systems.
Unfortunately what they had left (control over the engine thrust) was not enough, but they sure did their best. Apparently you can still control (to some extent) the plane using just the engines, with and the vertical stabilizer being completely gone, and no hydraulics. And this was in 1985.
I’m not saying that JAL 123 was in any way survivable (although some miraciously did survive), just pointing to the fact that even in the worst possible scenario there’s still probably a way to somehow control the plane.
One of the harrowing details is this quote: "The crew contacted United Airlines maintenance personnel via radio, but were told that the possibility of a total loss of hydraulics in a DC-10 was considered so remote that no procedure was established for such an event."
> One of the harrowing details is this quote: "The crew contacted United Airlines maintenance personnel via radio, but were told that the possibility of a total loss of hydraulics in a DC-10 was considered so remote that no procedure was established for such an event."
Has this even changed? What can you even do in the extremely unlikely scenario of loss of all hydraulic systems? I don't think it's even possible to train for such a scenario. You are truly on your own. What would the checklist even look like? "try doing the best you can with engine thrust alone, and may god help your soul"?
As far as I'm aware, the engineering has gotten better (introduction of hydraulic fuses that keep a closed loop in case there's indications of leakage), but truly, what can you even be expected to do without flight controls.
- Alaska Airlines Flight 261 - https://youtu.be/gAYzBJxOeLw?t=2106
- Lauda Air Flight 004: https://youtu.be/WsYU7tjOvm0?t=1196