November 16, 2006

OR JUST STAY HOME:

How to survive a plane crash (ANDREW CHUNG, 11/05/06, TORONTO STAR

[T]he fear of a plane crash is so pervasive because most people think it means certain death. The reality is just the opposite: the majority of people involved in aviation accidents survive.

In what is the most comprehensive research to date on the topic, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board studied 568 U.S. commercial air carrier accidents from 1983 to 2000 and found that just 12.5 per cent of these accidents had any fatalities at all. And that out of 53,487 passengers on these fatal flights, 51,207 survived. That's almost 96 per cent.

Even in the most serious of those fatal accidents, over 50 per cent of passengers survived. Catastrophic events in which everyone dies are exceedingly rare, the study says.

Though Canadian data from this country's Transportation Safety Board have not been compiled and analyzed in the same way, a look at the available statistics points to a similar conclusion. Between 1989 and 2004, 273 airliners and commuter aircraft were involved in accidents, resulting in 371 passenger and crew deaths. To put that in context, Canadians took more than 87 million flights in 2004 alone.

"The bottom line is it's extremely safe," says Marc-Antoine Plourde, an Air Canada pilot and president of DePlour Research and Training Centre in Montreal, which helps people conquer their fear of flying.

"We explain to people that it's not a fear that is justified given the level of safety. There are 500 to 1,000 deaths attributable to commercial aviation crashes every year, with close to 2 billion passengers flying. With 40,000 deaths in the streets alone in the U.S., and we're not scared of driving, you can see it's psychological."

Todd Curtis, a former Boeing airline safety analyst and accident investigator, says it's easy to get that impression when the media typically cover accidents with major death counts, such as last week's crash in Nigeria in which 96 died and nine survived, but ignore those with few problems.

Of course, your odds of surviving a plane crash very much depend on how much control the pilot is able to exert before impact, Curtis explains. If it's out of control, there's little hope.

"If it's high-speed, nose-to-ground, the ball game's over," he says. "Usually where there are survivors there is some sort of controllability to it."

The NTSB study says improvements in fire retardancy, aircraft configuration, floor lighting, seat and exit design, and evacuation procedures are reflected in the large number of crash survivors. It also says that, armed with the knowledge that survival rates are very high, passengers might do more to improve their own chances of getting out alive.

For Diezyn, this is simply good common sense. "There is a risk," Diezyn says. "You have to be ready for what could happen. It's like going biking without a helmet. It's a bad decision."


Of course, if the aviation industry cared about safety they'd just reverse the seats so you face the back of the plane, which is the single improvement that would save the most fliers. Eventually cars will be configured that way, including the driver's seat.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 16, 2006 5:58 PM
Comments

Yeah, that'll be a big selling point for the cars: "You can go 0 to 50 in seven seconds, and - get this - you won't be facing the way you're going!" Even with technology (cameras? mirror arrangements?), people like seeing where they're going. Airplanes I'll give you, and passenger seats, but not the driver.

Posted by: Just John at November 16, 2006 7:45 PM

Never gonna happen: people want to face forward, regardless of the extra risk, just as they ride in cars and airplanes regardless of the extra risk. Orrin, have you ever ridden in a train with compartments? The forward-facing seats are always the most popular.

And backwards seats in cars? I've read a lot of silly ideas in my life, but that's certainly in the top ten. Heck, your average driver can barely parallel park, and you expect them to drive backwards?

Posted by: PapayaSF at November 16, 2006 8:15 PM

Bah, libertarians all of you.

The true conservative is always facing backwards.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at November 16, 2006 9:20 PM

Plus, putting seats in backwards as a safety feature anticipates that drivers compensate for safety innovations by driving more dangerously. Queen to bishop five; Checkmate, I think.

Next up, onward to oil independence through a next-generation hybrid drive-train that involves pushing the ground with your feet through a hole in the floor.

Posted by: Mike Beversluis at November 16, 2006 9:36 PM

Mike,

I really admire the way you worked the word "train" in there. Know Your Audience ™!

Posted by: Kirk Parker at November 16, 2006 11:40 PM

Would OJ fly Airbus or Embraer if they put in rear-facing seats? What if there was a whistle sound as the jet started down the runway?

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 17, 2006 12:36 AM

Jim,

No, but if the rumors about Russia taking over some production on the 350 come to pass, perhaps at least his airbus could belch black smoke.

Posted by: Kirk Parker at November 17, 2006 2:37 AM

Note to Orrin (or Other Brother): you still may have something wrong with the site related to comments: when I post a comment, the page never reloads. SO eventually I cancel it, and when I refresh the original the comment is there...

Posted by: Kirk Parker at November 17, 2006 2:40 AM

Kirk,

Indeed there are still performance issues that need addressing. I'm just relieved to finally get the site working at all. I'll be trying to optimize over the next week or so.

Posted by: The Other Brother at November 17, 2006 4:23 AM

Kirk:

I'll bet if Airbus built a jet that ran on borscht, OJ would fly on it.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 17, 2006 10:19 AM

Airbus + Tupelov--an unbeetable combination?

Posted by: Kirk Parker at November 17, 2006 12:14 PM
« IMMORTALITY ON A CHECKERBOARD: | Main | IN THE STRANGE LAND (via Tom Morin): »