Surviving a plane crash - The 'brace' position.

[John Fenna]

It is no wonder I hate flying!
Those stats... plus the boredom, discomfort, being herded like cattle, made to breathe air drawn from inside an engine, spending more time in the airport than flying, being informed that the safety position is actually designed to kill quickly (or not) preserve dental records or save having both hands broken on landing.
What is so great about abroad that makes flying attractive?
I will stay at home in a country that is so good everyone wants to come here (just look at the camps around Calais!) and is officially known as GREAT Britain!
More than enough here to keep me interested until I die!
Anyone got any fatality stats on Northern Hemisphere ferry boats? - I like islands such as Orkney but when we flew there the plane from Edinburgh had engine trouble.... we took the ferry last time we went!
I know Asian ferries have a poorish record.... and I do not swim too well in icy water wearing lots of clothing...

 

[Corso]

difficult to say quite often they only count the floaters in the statistics

'lost at sea' is kept seperate

 

[Paul_B]

At the end of the day if you time's up, it's up and nothing will work but the brace position seems sensible to me from a movement of the body point of view.

In my case the brace would have me pushed up against the seat ahead since I am 6'5" tall. My legs are usually scrunched up with my feet off the floor. Airplanes are just not made for the taller user only airline profits. If you can't afford to buy first class you are in cattle class if you are tall. I am sure with the legs issue if there is a crash which is survivable and the neck does not snap due to the use or not of the brace position my legs would not be in a fit state to get me out. Basically I think if you did a full H&S assessment of airplanes (commercial airlines) you would find a lot of things that would help. Things such as rearward facing seats (as mentioned above by more knowledgeable ppl than me) and more legroom too I reckon is important. Rant over, sorry.

BTW this rarely affect me as I live in a small country where I can drive anywhere within it's borders within a day. I rarely fly and never since joining my current company. I have too much of this country left to see for a lifetime let alone what I have left. If I do go on holiday overseas it is only going to be Europe and probably by car or train due to camping gear and probably bikes. All in all I doubt I will ever need to find out if the brace position works or not. Not least since the probability of an accident is low and is further reduced by the probability of me flying also being low. On top of that my passport has run out so I am stuck here in the UK, happy days!!

 

[Paul_B]

Agree with Mr Fenna. I have too much to see in the UK. Orkneys has been on my to see list for a decade or more. Me and a mate nearly went there one winter. We had decided to see it in winter in order to see it with the worst weather for some reason. We just couldn't organize time off at the same time for long enough to make it worthwhile (could have ended up our only visit so needed to make it worthwhile).

I also have only one experience of Mid Wales (walking across it in 16 hours including Plynlymon cross country and not on paths -bad spelling I know). I have vast swathes of Scotland from the southern uplands (excluding Galloway areas in the SW - done that to death really) through to Sutherland. Plus the cities. I have no real experience of the SE of England neither. Reckon despite all the people there there must be some nice places there. Then there is still plenty left to do in my own patch the Lakes. Different ways of doing the same areas. I've climbed, walked, camped, kayaked a lot there but I've not cycled (cycle tour on the cards) and I've never tried a camping pod in winter out yet. SMall things in a small country but it is just so beautiful I can't see the need to fly somewhere else.

 

[John Fenna]

difficult to say quite often they only count the floaters in the statistics

'lost at sea' is kept seperate

Encouraging.......

 

[forrestdweller]

with all those SHEEPLE on board of an airplane i'm not rating my chances of getting out after a crash very high- no matter which position.... .

+it seems to me that there's a good risk of leg/knee injury (after watching the ""mythbusters"" clip).... .

 

[Joonsy]

Those stats... plus the boredom, discomfort, being herded like cattle, made to breathe air drawn from inside an engine, spending more time in the airport than flying

I share some of those views, many people spend thousands of pounds on looking for greener grass in far flung places while never looking at the grass beneath their own feet. It’s funny how many people also develop a superior attitude if they travel a lot, I’ve often been talked down to when I say I have no desire to fly abroad (yes I have flown, no desire to do so again). However flying is statistically safer than driving.

BTW this rarely affect me as I live in a small country where I can drive anywhere within it's borders within a day. I rarely fly If I do go on holiday overseas it is only going to be Europe and probably by car or train due to camping gear and probably bikes.

Actually there are more deaths and injuries on the roads than by flying, airline flying accidents often involve large numbers of casualties and receive lots of news coverage however they happen much less frequently than road accidents. Road accidents involve lots of individual incidents each with a relatively small amount of casualties and often receive no news coverage at all. Flying is statistically much safer than driving but gets lots more news coverage when things go wrong which is why it 'appears' to be more dangerous, some euro stats http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Transport_accident_statistics

 

[Corso]

there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics

 

[Joonsy]

there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics

statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics

 

[malcolmc]

The most effective method of risk management is to eliminate the risk. Before you book your next air flight in the UK try searching the Air Accidents Investigation Branch website [ http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports.cfm ] for reports of incidents including your proposed carrier and type of aircraft; guaranteed to change you to a surface traveller.

I used to try and minimise the risk of air travel by asking for a seat level with an emergency exit (extra legroom too), it seemed a logical choice. Then BA brought is a rule that nervous passengers could not sit level with an exit - how do you identify a nervous passenger - they are the ones who ask to sit level with an exit. You can't win really.

Unless there is no other option I won't fly; it's an issue of control.

 

[wattsy]

Conspiracy? I was in the legions paras, we were told that.

still wrong though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9925121/Does-the-brace-position-save-lives.html

 

[Paul_B]

statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics

Not even liars. Many who use statistics don't understand them and the methodology used. Everyone knows percentages right? They know average (actually mean) right? But all these statistics of risk are based on probabilities and other statistical techniques. I admit that I do not understand probability anywhere close to that involved in calculating risk. I've got two engineering degrees and as part of them did statistics as well as engineering mathematics. Even without that statistics training engineering is a numerical discipline in that you need maths skills and knowledge to be an engineer / get the degree. If you laid the bare data in front of me I would not have a clue. However the authors of the research leading to these risk calculations will undoubtedly have to dumb it all down for those without their knowledge and skills. That dumbing down and our own interpretations of what they put out to the general public / authorities leads to the idea that statistics can lie.

The truth is you can use statistics to lie but they do not lie. It is how we use them. If we use them in a wrong manner, wrong method or wrong use of them then the truth dies. That is when we become the liars not the statistics.

Sorry about the little digression but it wrankles a little with me how people pump out statistics without understanding or to "prove" a point irrespective if that point can and should be made with the data. This is especially true with politicians. The likes of the ONS over here in the UK is always going to be political too. They publish the statistics that politicians ask for in a manner they want. Whilst they might be truthful in their production those statistics often paint a view according to the way the original request was asked. The same is true for government finance figures. The bean counters use established and accepted accounting / finance practices and methods to publish figures. The politicians then cherry pick the figures. A classic was New Labour in the early days of Blair's Presidentship I mean prime ministership. They stated a huge figure of 18 Billion Pounds being spent on something highly important to their supporters over so many years (probably on top of existing spend). The trouble was they were provided this figure through the use of accounting methods not understood by anyone other than those with economic, accounting or finance experience/skills. The truth of the figure it effectively added the value of money from the year in question to that of the year before. So year 2 figure was actually year 1 & 2. Then year 3 was then 1, 2 and 3 years and so on for a few years. Then they added up the figures for each year effectively adding the actual year's figures more than once. Well, that is probably not right but I truly did not understand what they did. All I know there wasn't actually 18 billion spent but a fraction of that. However since there was an accounting reason they could give this figure out without the accusation of being liars, but it was highly misleading and wrong figure to give out because of it.

Rant over, but statistics are just maths, no more able to be wrong than 1+1=2!!

 

[Paul_B]

Question. Why does being told by some military unit make it right? Sorry if it sounds disrespectful but does "knowledge" handed down within one section of society guarantee accuracy? That could have been originated by some joker who told enough people for it to get passed on as fact. I mean if you hear something told to you as fact by enough people you often have a tendency to believe it. Eventually within such a section of society that becomes almost part of the training. one trainer tells it to his recruits. One of whom later becomes a trainer passing it down to his recruits and so on ad infinitum. It is now true. No! It is only a fallacy passed on so it's origin (the joker for example who made it up) has been forgotten. The myth becomes reality. There be dragons and the earth is flat!!!! They were also passed down in the same way.

 

[Joonsy]

The most effective method of risk management is to eliminate the risk.

yeah it won't leave you much to do though other than sleep

Not even liars. Many who use statistics don't understand them and the methodology used. Everyone knows percentages right? They know average (actually mean) right? But all these statistics of risk are based on probabilities and other statistical techniques. I admit that I do not understand probability anywhere close to that involved in calculating risk. I've got two engineering degrees and as part of them did statistics as well as engineering mathematics. Even without that statistics training engineering is a numerical discipline in that you need maths skills and knowledge to be an engineer / get the degree. If you laid the bare data in front of me I would not have a clue. However the authors of the research leading to these risk calculations will undoubtedly have to dumb it all down for those without their knowledge and skills. That dumbing down and our own interpretations of what they put out to the general public / authorities leads to the idea that statistics can lie.

The truth is you can use statistics to lie but they do not lie. It is how we use them. If we use them in a wrong manner, wrong method or wrong use of them then the truth dies. That is when we become the liars not the statistics.

Sorry about the little digression but it wrankles a little with me how people pump out statistics without understanding or to "prove" a point irrespective if that point can and should be made with the data. This is especially true with politicians. The likes of the ONS over here in the UK is always going to be political too. They publish the statistics that politicians ask for in a manner they want. Whilst they might be truthful in their production those statistics often paint a view according to the way the original request was asked. The same is true for government finance figures. The bean counters use established and accepted accounting / finance practices and methods to publish figures. The politicians then cherry pick the figures. A classic was New Labour in the early days of Blair's Presidentship I mean prime ministership. They stated a huge figure of 18 Billion Pounds being spent on something highly important to their supporters over so many years (probably on top of existing spend). The trouble was they were provided this figure through the use of accounting methods not understood by anyone other than those with economic, accounting or finance experience/skills. The truth of the figure it effectively added the value of money from the year in question to that of the year before. So year 2 figure was actually year 1 & 2. Then year 3 was then 1, 2 and 3 years and so on for a few years. Then they added up the figures for each year effectively adding the actual year's figures more than once. Well, that is probably not right but I truly did not understand what they did. All I know there wasn't actually 18 billion spent but a fraction of that. However since there was an accounting reason they could give this figure out without the accusation of being liars, but it was highly misleading and wrong figure to give out because of it.

Rant over, but statistics are just maths, no more able to be wrong than 1+1=2!!

:Wow: Crikey my eyes need bathing after that :yikes: i was simply saying there's more chance of having a car crash than having an aeroplane crash

 

[brambles]

Lots? Realy?

Yes , really. You will note I referred to crash landings, and not crashes/explosions/fires. If the daft conspiracy that the brace position was deliberately designed to kill all the passengers was bizzarely true, there would be a 100% fatality rate with all necks snapped on impact, would'nt there? I don't see anything like that in your linked stats.

 

[bearbait]

Many who use statistics don't understand them and the methodology used. Everyone knows percentages right? They know average (actually mean) right? But all these statistics of risk are based on probabilities and other statistical techniques...

...The truth is you can use statistics to lie but they do not lie. It is how we use them. If we use them in a wrong manner, wrong method or wrong use of them then the truth dies. That is when we become the liars not the statistics...

There is quite a strong correlation between the US per capita consumption of cheese and the number of people who die by becoming entangled in their bedsheets. See here. There is a similar correlation between those who drown from falling from a fishing boat and the marriage rate in Kentucky. (Perhaps the drownee realised they'd married the wrong person?)

 

[Corso]

Yes , really. You will note I referred to crash landings, and not crashes/explosions/fires. If the daft conspiracy that the brace position was deliberately designed to kill all the passengers was bizzarely true, there would be a 100% fatality rate with all necks snapped on impact, would'nt there? I don't see anything like that in your linked stats.

Sorry I think we crossed in conversation, I agreed the neck snap thieory is bunkum, my point was I don't fancy my chances regardless of how I'm sitting

 

[Joonsy]

There is quite a strong correlation between the US per capita consumption of cheese and the number of people who die by becoming entangled in their bedsheets. See here. There is a similar correlation between those who drown from falling from a fishing boat and the marriage rate in Kentucky. (Perhaps the drownee realised they'd married the wrong person?)

The most effective method of risk management is to eliminate the risk.

Nice one As a big cheese eater seems I’m running the risk of dying in a tangled bedsheet, unless I follow malcolmc's advice above and eliminate the risk by not using bedsheets or stop eating cheese.

 

[sandbender]

"...What is so great about abroad that makes flying attractive?...officially...known as GREAT Britain...I like islands such as Orkney..."

I'm with you on the flying. One of the joys of living in Mainland Europe is the incredibly well organised, reliable, comfortable and cheap rail system. I used to fly back and forth from Edinburgh to London for work and it was a terrible experience, especially on the London side.

I'm guessing that you know that Britain is 'Great' because it is the bigger of the two islands? Ireland was 'Little' Britain in Roman times.

My recent ancestors are from Orkney, an interesting place, not enough trees though.

 

[Paul_B]

There is quite a strong correlation between the US per capita consumption of cheese and the number of people who die by becoming entangled in their bedsheets. See here. There is a similar correlation between those who drown from falling from a fishing boat and the marriage rate in Kentucky. (Perhaps the drownee realised they'd married the wrong person?)

Like it. Class use of stats and fail of logic. I remember watching something about logic on TV a year or so ago and we're kind of programmed to use faulty logic. It's an interesting subject, logic that is. There's also a few good books on it too. Think fast slow (or similar title) is one, chimp paradox is another. I've not read them just heard they're good books on thought processes.