Tags
Like many frequent flyers and San Francisco bay area residents, last Saturday’s tragic crash of Asiana Flight 214 touched home; I was one of the thousands stuck in the backlog of traffic on U.S. 101 when the San Francisco Airport was closed to incoming and departing traffic after the crash. Faced with such a horror, it is human nature to wonder how a tragedy like this can be prevented in the future. But the sad fact is that most large international airports in the U.S. are situated closely to major highways and the unfortunate loss of vehicular mobility when a plane falls out of the sky is unavoidable.
There is little we can do to prevent this type of horror from happening again, but perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the airliner’s crash instead. Since as a passenger your role is to simply board, strap in, be equally bored and abused for the duration of the flight, and then disembark, you wouldn’t think you’d need to be a rocket scientists to be part of the cattle call known as modern day air travel. But those whose profession as a talking head requires their lips to move regardless of the lack of accompanying brain activity say differently. How you can improve your chances of surviving a airplane crash has become the favorite topic of side-bar featured analysts this week when the nation’s media should have instead been focused on the payback we’ll all vicariously receive when the jury in the Trayvon Martin murder trial hands that officious little prick security guard / policeman wannabe his head on a platter.
Unfortunately that means instead of learning tips for being the sole survivor of a plane crash instead we’ve been given worthless advice such as never wear flip flops on a plane ‘cuz they “are the wrong attire for evacuation slides.” “Count the rows to the nearest exit, since you may need to find it under dark or smoky conditions,” on the other hand, isn’t bad advice. Though personally I think counting the old people between you and the nearest exit who’ll be easy to climb over is an even surer path to safety. With that in mind, here are some considerations on surviving a plane crash thanks to the lessons learned from Flight 214’s rough landing:
The Odds Are With You Even If The Force Is Not. The two teenage girls who arrived at their final destination on Flight 214 were the first two deaths on a scheduled commercial flight in the United States this year. In fact they set the record for the last 4½ years. During that period, more than 3 billion passengers flew with no fatalities in the United States or on U.S. airlines. At that risk per flight, a traveler could on average fly once a day for 4 million years before succumbing to a fatal crash. An American teenager is far more likely to grow up to be president or win the Nobel Prize in physics than he is to perish on a flight today. Think about that: as difficult as it is to believe, a U.S. teenager will actually win the Nobel Prize in physics some day.
Unless Lightening Strikes Twice. As a passenger there’s not much you can personally do to increase the odds that your plane will get you to your intended destination in one piece. But that doesn’t mean you should ignore the few things that you do have control over. You probably play the lottery, and probably have your favorite lucky numbers. But do you ever consider the lucky or unlucky numbers of your flight? No. You don’t. Or at least 307 passengers last week didn’t. Flight 214 doesn’t have a good record for staying aloft. In 1963 Pan Am’s version crashed near crashed near Elkton, Maryland, killing all 81 on board. After being hit by lightning. Just sayin.
We All Have Baggage. Unless he had jars filled with summer kimchi packed in his carry-on, the actions of Flight 214’s passenger Xu Da, who said he first grabbed his luggage, then scooped up his young child and fled the burning plane with his wife is perplexing. The instinct of many of the passengers to find their luggage before their children and fleeing for their lives has baffled airline safety experts, none of whom, obviously, have children. Amateur video shot of the aftermath of Saturday’s crash show some passengers wheeling their heavy luggage away from the plane just moments before it catches fire. You have to wonder just how attached some people are to their knock-off Gucci luggage.
This strange phenomenon just proves that Darwin had it right. Not that his theory can’t occasionally use an assist. As can your fellow passengers during your flight to safety. Feel free to offer your help to those fools in front of you struggling with their baggage. Then once in your control, toss their bags toward the back of the plane. This should clear your path to the nearest exit nicely. And if you accidently mistake a child for a piece of luggage, evidently your error will be of little concern to its parents. Though you may still have to toss a few of their bags away to get them to move.
Location, Location, Location. According to research commissioned by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and carried out by Greenwich University in London that studied 105 airliner accidents, passengers sitting in the aisle seats near the front of an airliner and within five rows of the emergency exit are the most likely to survive a crash. Which makes sense ‘cuz those who could only afford to travel in steerage are basically nothing more than ballast anyway.
Randy Reep, a Florida attorney and professional pilot who couldn’t snag a gig offering his useless input on the Trayvon Martin murder trial and had to settle for a role as a talking head for coverage of Flight 214’s crash instead, disagrees. He says the safest place to sit is in the back of the plane, citing the not-a-fact that all the weight and momentum in an airplane is being pushed forward when it hits a stop to back up his opinion. Reep says those in the front of the plane during a crash become, basically, pancakes.
I can’t tell you whether Reep or the CAA is right, but can tell you that I am getting sick and tired of the class warfare being incited by the 99% and it has to come to a stop. I can also tell you that whether it is safer to sit in the back of the plan or not, by doing so you’d have a 93.8% greater chance of sitting next to someone like George Zimmerman. Or a Florida attorney who’s so crappy at his day job that he has to take part-time work providing inane commentary for CBS to use as filler between commercials.
Is Bigger Better? Even when it comes to aluminum tubes mocking the earth’s pull, size matters and bigger is better. Or at least more safe. Asiana Flight 214 was a Boeing 777, which holds between 314 and 451 passengers depending on how tightly an airline company packs them in. The 777’s record of fatal crashes is at 1. Ooops, make that 2. The 737, which can hold up to 215 passengers has experienced 72 fatal crashes, while the no longer in production but still in use 727 with a 189 passenger count has crashed with an accompanying body count 50 times.
Um, About Those Frequent Flyer Miles. Airlines like to boast about their on-time record, but seldom mention their Full Loss Equivalent (FLE) score, which computes their fatal event rate. In the U.S., American Airlines leads the pack with a score of 10.08 for its 13 not death defying mishaps. For the Pacific region, Taiwan’s China Airlines has a 6.44 FLE thanks to its 10 crashes, and Turkish Airlines holds the record in Europe with a 10 crash 7.56 FLE score.
Watching Survivor Could Mean You Are A Survivor. Just ‘cuz you walked away from a burning plane that made an unscheduled landing doesn’t mean your fun is all done. Juliane Koepcke, the 17-year-old sole survivor of Flight 508 that crashed and burned en route to Lima, Peru fell 10,000 feet strapped to her seat into the jungle below. 10 days later she managed to trek her way to civilization and eventual rescue.
Related Posts You Might Enjoy:
Alex said:
I’d love to share your enthusiasm regarding the possible conviction of Mr Zimmerman, but I think he’s merely the product of a society ridden with hatred, bigotry and paranoia. As long as hatemongers are covered by an unchecked Freedom of Speech privilege and as long as the laws stay as they are, there will always be a simpleton, or ten, who will stand their ground. Sure, people kill people, but a security guard or neighborhood watchman equipped with a baton instead of a firearm (as it is the norm in more civilized jurisdictions) simply wouldn’t have led to the same result, even if his state of mind had been the same.
Most people I know who are familiar with the case think he should walk or don’t give a damn either way. That probably says more about the people I know than about the merits of the case, but given the vast number of people shot dead every year, this particular case attracts a lot of attention in some circles.
Bangkokbois said:
Huh. Now that the verdict is out: WTF!?
I really hope the jury will explain their thinking. Having asked for manslaughter to be explained, they obviously were considering a guilty verdict at one point. And I don’t think they meant their verdict to be the same as innocent. I have to assume the result was largely due to the crappy job the prosecution did. But then we are dealing with Florida . . .
Mitch S. said:
Very interesting perspective from Christopher Darden (you probably remember him from the O.J. Simpson murder trial):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/14/christopher-darden-believes-there-may-be-justice-yet-for-trayvon.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29
The last jury I was on was a murder/manslaughter/not guilty decision for the jury. In that trial the prosecution could not prove premeditation, so manslaughter was the verdict. Juries usually reach the correct decision in spite of the average dumb fucks on a jury. Just think of 12 Timmys! deciding your fate! Quite scary.
Bangkokbois said:
LOL!
My life of crime just came to a screeching halt!
Interesting take (though I’m quite done with hearing the opinions of the OJ gang). I don’t however, think the original crime was racially motivated. The uproar and follow through was, but not George shooting the kid. He would have been just as happy to have gunned down a white guy. So a federal case as a civil rights violation I don’t see. I’m not sure if the idea of a civil suit is a good one either. Neither side has much money, I’m not sure even a verdict for his family would bring them closure. In any case, I don’t expect George to have a very happy life.
Alex said:
I cannot say I’m surprised. Even a well-meaning jury would have had problems to convict, given the legal situation in Florida. Murder – no case, the prosecution tried that merely because of immense pressure, but that was clearly a non-starter. Manslaughter – that’s what I think it was, personally, but the Stand your Ground legislation pretty much legalizes manslaughter whenever you think you’re threatened. Had the jury convicted regardless, there’s a good chance the conviction wouldn’t have survived an appeal.
It’s sickening, but not the jury’s fault in my opinion. I don’t think they have any explaining to do. I also think Mr Zimmerman isn’t an outlier; being put in the same situation, many others would do just the same. There’s a reason why the laws are as they are there.
Bangkokbois said:
Note that my comment about an explanation from the jury didn’t mean they needed to defend their decision – I am interested in hearing their logic though. They were sequestered (for all the good that did) and sat through the entire hearing, so I assume they have a different take. Just curious to hear how they arrived at the decision they did.
Having said that, GZ is guilty as all hell. His was an intentional act. Even little kids know the first line of defense when getting a scolding for fighting is to point at the other guy and say, “He started it!” And George started this one. He was busy playing cop. I’ve been involved in setting up numerous Neighborhood Watch programs for different communities and every time the police stress again and again your job is to watch. Not to get involved. And every time the cops’ greatest concern are the policeman wannabes who sign up for the watch. How many times had he called 911 during the last year? Something like 80? And when the 911 operator told him to walk away, he of course knew better. It’s just a shame the prosecution wasn’t able to do a better job.
jeffreymonsoon said:
Having recently been on a jury for three weeks it just astounded me how people would refuse to acknowledge something that they know happened, unless they saw it with their own eyes or there were at least two witnesses. These were smart, educated people, many of them college faculty out for the summer, and yet the only things they would convict on were the incidences where there was a second witness, not just the victim. I would ask them, “do you believe the victim when she tells what happened” and they would say yes, and still not convict. Fortunately there was enough evidence corroborated by a second victim to nail the guy, but if it had just been the one victim, chester the molester would still be walking free.
I am thoroughly convinced that the IQ of the US is dropping like a rock.
Bangkokbois said:
Administering an IQ test to potential jurors would be a good idea. But then since you are supposed to be tried in front of a jury of your peers . . .