×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

454 comments

It's safer in the back and... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938691)

you're by the bathrooms and you can watch any hottie walk back to her seat.

Re:It's safer in the back and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938731)

and ... it often smells like shit back there.

Re:It's safer in the back and... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938749)

that's no problem. Linux users often smell like shit too.

Re:It's safer in the back and... (2, Insightful)

I'll Provide The War (1045190) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938753)

Have you been to America lately? The only thing you would be watching here is a BBW walking sideways just to fit down the aisle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2007/07/19/wfat119.xml [telegraph.co.uk]

This is absurd to concern oneself with anyway since the death rate for commercial air travel is around 0.14 per billion miles. The death rate for automobile travel is 11,350% higher.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2001/ar01f.htm l [dallasfed.org]

Re:It's safer in the back and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938987)

Yeah, but chances are that the hottie isn't even going to take a second look at you while your "...all back-of-the-bus and shit". ("Chronicles of Riddock")

How's this for irony? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939063)

So, the back of the plane is safest, and that's where they put the smokers?

You'd think they'd put those who want to commit slow suicide in the nose or something, just to help them speed things along.

Re:How's this for irony? (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939437)

Is there still anywhere in the world where commercial airline flights are not non-smoking by law?

Re:It's safer in the back and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939289)

Wouldn't it be better to see them coming *from* their seat so you can offer to join them ( and the mile high club)? ;)

Easy answer... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938701)

Don't get on one. Every time I have in the last few years one of the following happens:

  • I get sick, flue like symptoms - too many germs
  • Late for a connecting flight, get stuck overnight in the airport
  • Ear infection, the local doctor said 5/6 were on the same flight

Re:Easy answer... (2, Insightful)

FieroEtnl (773481) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938747)

So you would rather drive for three days to cross the country rather than fly for one? Given what gas prices are like now, you'd probably end up spending more on the car trip than the plane, and you'd be spending an extra couple of days traveling. I think I'll take my chances with the sick people and potential delays.

Re:Easy answer... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938827)

Fiero writes: "So you would rather drive for three days to cross the country rather than fly for one?"

Guess what? Trains and buses will get you there too. And trains are the most civilized way to travel.

But I question why anyone would have to travel across country anyway. If you find yourself doing that often, then something is wrong. Better to move there entirely.

Re:Easy answer... (1)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938993)

And trains are the most civilized way to travel.

What the heck are you smoking??? Have you been on a train in the USA lately? My god, even the nicer Amtrak Acela are barely decent.

Re:Easy answer... (2, Interesting)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939241)

I've had pretty good experiences in the trains in the i-95 corridor. I think it's funny that the trains are much faster than planes with the congestion at airports. Nothing beats a Western US bus trip, it's not just a ride, it's an adventure. A modern bard could build a lifetime of tales from two regional bus trips.

Re:Easy answer... (2, Interesting)

TheDigitalOne (105087) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939003)

I just went through the cross-country driving exercise last week. Seattle -> Baltimore driving an RV took 4 days of driving 12 hours per day, about 48 hours all told, the RV gets 7 MPG 2,800 miles so 400 gallons of gas at around $3/per, so $1,200 in gas alone (nevermind food, etc).

The return flight took 5 hours and cost me $149.00

After seeing so many whacko drivers on the road during the trip I have no doubt in my mind that the driving portion was vastly more dangerous than the return flight!

Re:Easy answer... (1)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939015)

OK, air travel can be unpleasant and unpredictable, but it's still *way* safer than driving. Saying you'll drive because you're afraid of an air crash is like saying you'll run Windows 98 because you're afraid of the security holes in Vista.

If there's one bit of mysticism I believe.. (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938721)

it's that if your time has come there's nothing you can do.

Which is good, cause it fits in nicely with a bit of wisdom that a lot of people should take to heart:

don't worry about stuff you have no control over.

Re:If there's one bit of mysticism I believe.. (5, Insightful)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938949)

Yeah, well, if your airplane gets in trouble you'd better hope the pilot doesn't believe that.

rj

Re:If there's one bit of mysticism I believe.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938989)

It's useless to worry when you don't have control, but it's smart to choose the circumstances. The way you phrase it if my car brakes are defective I should still drive and not worry about it.

Re:If there's one bit of mysticism I believe.. (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939403)

But what if you could have prevented the circumstances had you worried enough, thus becoming more aware and thus more able to influence your surroundings? You're more likely to survive, and isn't that bit of likeliness worth it when it comes to your life?

Trust me, I don't want to worry about anything, but I'm too worried not to.

Infinite loop head explode.

Re:If there's one bit of mysticism I believe.. (2, Insightful)

SRA8 (859587) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939447)

>> don't worry about stuff you have no control over.

Which is exactly the point of this article -- you DO have some control over survival!

Sit in the rear (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938723)

Rarely does an airplane back into the side of a mountain.

Re:Sit in the rear (5, Funny)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938743)

Rarely does an airplane back into the side of a mountain.
Because the mountains move aside when they hear that beeping sound and see the flashing lights?

Re:Sit in the rear (1)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939147)

Rarely does an airplane back into the side of a mountain.
Unfortunately, after the plane hits the mountain, it slides down and over the cliff backwards.

What are the odds? (5, Insightful)

slughead (592713) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938733)

The odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,051 in your whole lifetime. To give you some perspective, you're 5 times more likely to drown, 23 times more likely to fall to your death, and 60 times more likely to die in a car accident.

Therefore, a far more useful article would be "How to survive driving off a seaside cliff into the ocean."

Re:What are the odds? (5, Insightful)

nerdonamotorcycle (710980) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938737)

Indeed. You're way more likely to die as a result of the cab ride to the airport.

Re:What are the odds? (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939093)

That is why you should sit at the wing if you have flight sickness. Center of Gravity.

Re:What are the odds? (3, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939169)

PItch motions are usually pretty gentle in airliners. Roll motions can be more severe, especially in widebodies. Sit closer to the centerline. On a one-aisle plane, sit in an aisle seat; on a two-aisle plane, sit in the middle bank of seats (a center seat is best). That said, sitting close to the wing isn't a bad idea either.

Re:What are the odds? (4, Funny)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938785)

Therefore, a far more useful article would be "How to survive driving off a seaside cliff into the ocean."

Install wings on your car?

Re:What are the odds? (4, Funny)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939081)

Therefore, a far more useful article would be "How to survive driving off a seaside cliff into the ocean."

Install wings on your car?
and then climb to the back seat on the way down...

Re:What are the odds? (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938787)

I thought it was established that the intial crash kills few people, but tends to fracture alot of legs, then everyone dies in the resulting fire because they can't get out. So maybe a better article would be "How to get out of a burning plane when you have two broken legs." Of course I get all my science from MythBusters:http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/myt hbusters_killer_brace_posit.html [kwc.org]

Re:What are the odds? (5, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938945)

Aortic dissection. This is what kills you. It's the most common, lethal deceleration injury. Of course if you're going fast enough you're simply crushed, but at "lower" speeds a sudden deceleration is enough to rotate the heart (which is fairly mobile in the chest) and rip it off the aorta (which is fixed to the posterior chest wall). The arteriovenous ligament doesn't help, either. So the aorta ruptures and you die of a cardiac tamponade. Oh and this is how Princess Diana died.

Re:What are the odds? (0)

Abreu (173023) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939051)

Obligatory Joke:

What was the last thing on Princess Diana's head just before she died? The car's engine

Re:What are the odds? (4, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939291)

"Aortic dissection. This is what kills you. It's the most common, lethal deceleration injury. Of course if you're going fast enough you're simply crushed, but at "lower" speeds a sudden deceleration is enough to rotate the heart (which is fairly mobile in the chest) and rip it off the aorta (which is fixed to the posterior chest wall). The arteriovenous ligament doesn't help, either. So the aorta ruptures and you die of a cardiac tamponade. Oh and this is how Princess Diana died."

They wanted to install seats facing backwards in airplanes specifically to reduce the deaths from the initial crash. Howver, they determined that the flying public wouldn't accept rear-facing seats. Considering all the BS the flying public puts up with nowadyas, maybe its time to float the idea again.

Oh, another Princess Di joke - "I heard Princess Di was on the radio... And the dash. And the seat ..."

Re:What are the odds? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939391)

Absolute rubbish. read the wikipedia page on Aortic dissection [wikipedia.org] - nothing there about rapid deceleration being the common cause.
The most common form of death on an airplane is fire/smoke inhalation, unless people are simply crushed of course. The G-forces in most crashes are far less than those experienced in a car crash, and easily survivable. Aircraft are large and compress slowly.

Re:What are the odds? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939421)

"The G-forces in most crashes are far less than those experienced in a car crash, and easily survivable. Aircraft are large and compress slowly."

What a load of crap. That might be true at low speeds but if an aircraft impacts with a mountain at 400kph (thats 110 metres per second) even a 70m 747 will be crushed flat in less than a second. Barely enough time for the occupants to even register they've hit something never mind do anything about it.

Re:What are the odds? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938803)

Most people feel this is reassuring. Whenever I hear it I think "man, what a complete waste of money they spend on safety.. no wonder ticket prices are so high."

I'm willing to get in a car. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of risk.. Why is it when it comes to air travel I don't have the option to accept the same amount of risk as I'm obviously willing to accept? That's a rhetorical question; I know the answer.. government regulations. The real question is, why are government regulations so much more strict for plane safety than they are for car safety?

Re:What are the odds? (3, Insightful)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938991)

Because if we flew airplanes like most people drive cars, we'd die like flies.

rj

Re:What are the odds? (1)

sleigher (961421) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939039)

I wanna know why when they test new airplanes they have an escape hatch that you can jump out and parachute to safety but in the production models this feature is removed. Would it be that hard to have a parachut under the seat and have everyone bail out if the plane starts going down? I this does nothing for takeoff and landing crashes or even the likes of 9/11.

Seems that some lives saved would be better than absolutely no lives saved. Or at least they tried.....

Re:What are the odds? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939135)

I think half the planes passengers would be trampled to death in the mayhem it is when you got 500 persons on a 747 trying to put on a parachute. On top of that, just about none of them knows how to steer a parachute, so quite a few more will probably die landing their parachute.

Re:What are the odds? (5, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939255)

There are no parachutes on airliners for the following reasons:

1. Parachutes are heavy, so a plane equipped with them could carry less cargo or passengers and ticket prices would go up.

2. Parachutes are very complex to pack, and would have to be unpacked, inspected, and repacked at regular maintenance intervals, at considerable expense (not to mention increased time out of service for the plane).

3. If the plane is high enough that parachutes will be of any use, it's impossible to open most exit doors as pressure seals them against the inside of the fuselage.

4. Only a tiny fraction of passengers would understand how to use parachutes. When all the others slam into the ground at terminal velocity -- especially if the plane somehow survives -- it's a brave new world of stupendously huge liability for the airline.

Re:What are the odds? (1)

sleigher (961421) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939313)

well dang..... The problem I have is if an airplane crashes, specifically a commercial airliner, I am almost guaranteed to die. If my car crashes I have a better, in some cases much, better chance of surviving. I know the odds stack up that flying is absolutely the safest way to travel, but when there is a problem, it is catastrophic. Not so with autos.

Re:What are the odds? (2, Insightful)

jointm1k (591234) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938845)

. . . and 60 times more likely to die in a car accident.

That's only because the average human does a whole lot less traveling by plane than he does by car.

Re:What are the odds? (1, Informative)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938943)

It's all about skewing the data to make whatever point you feel like. Actually, cars are still more dangerous per passenger mile. However airplane flights are generally only dangerous at take off and landing. I.e. airline flights are equally dangerous regardless of distance, whereas car accidents are more likely the longer the trip. But then we know that most car accidents occur close to home... but then most car trips are short ones close to home... etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum...

Re:What are the odds? (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938881)

I tend to view the issue with plane crashes (and terrorism, which is even more ridiculously unlikely) is the loss of control. With cars, if you're driving, you feel like you're in control of the vehicle, and by extension the situation, and thus feel safer. Even if you have a friend driving, you now have someone you (probably) trust in control of the situation.

By contrast, in a plane, you're totally at the mercy of the pilots and air traffic controllers. You don't know them, and you know that if they screw up there's pretty close to nothing you can do about it. So even if the risk is actually less, it appears to be greater, because you are giving up control over whether you live or die.

Re:What are the odds? (1)

batquux (323697) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938891)

23 times more likely to fall to your death
Does that include falling to your death in a plane?

Re:What are the odds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939121)

Right, and the odds are 0 if you never fly, or significantly higher if you're in sales.

("Odds of dying" statistics are pretty meaningless in terms of actual risk. Tell me how many plane crashes per year, where they happened, how they happened, what type of planes, what airline was responsible, etc -- I can actually make some sense of those numbers.)

Re:What are the odds? (2, Interesting)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939151)

Because that would be boring:

- Don't drive while drunk
- Don't drive while tired
- Don't call while driving
- Don't verbally fight while driving
- Don't speed
- Fasten seatbelts
- No sex while driving

Who want's to read that, heh?!

Yes - but what are the odds of ... (1)

dustpuppy (5260) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939193)

being in a plane that disintegrates in mid-air, falling onto a road, getting hit by a car whilst it's raining where I drown in a deep water-filled pothole. That's what's got me most concerned.

Re:What are the odds? (1)

stripmarkup (629598) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939245)

Obviously it depends on how much you fly. So far this year I've flown 27 segments (take offs and landings) on work assignments. I wonder what's the average per person.

Re:What are the odds? (1)

Odin's Raven (145278) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939435)

The odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,051 in your whole lifetime. To give you some perspective, you're 5 times more likely to drown, 23 times more likely to fall to your death, and 60 times more likely to die in a car accident.

Therefore, a far more useful article would be "How to survive driving off a seaside cliff into the ocean."

The answer is self-evident - as you're driving off the cliff, simply aim your car at a passing airplane. Once you've embedded your car into the side of the plane, your odds of dying drop dramatically.

Statistics can mean anything you want (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939443)

"and 60 times more likely to die in a car accident."

Given I use my car everyday and I fly about twice a year max (and that probably roughly applies to a lot of people) it would seem to me that my car is actually safer than the plane. In fact you could say that for most people the safest method of transport is the space shuttle since hardly anyone will ever travel in it!

Reminds me of... (5, Funny)

rundstykke (645735) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938759)

..an entertaining read I bumped into a couple of months back, describing how to survive a freefall from 35'000 feet...

http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/carkeet.html [greenharbor.com]


/Rundstykke

Worry about something else (5, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938763)

If you're really worried about a plane crash, I suggest staying home. Maybe don't get out of bed at all.

Watching and reading the news is your real problem. Things that happen on the news are extremely unlikely to happen to you. That's why you never see headlines like "Jill Larson Goes to the Market. Buys Coffee. (Subtitle: Coffee purchase exceeds analysts' expectations by 100%)"

That's all. I have to go to the market. But I'm not buying coffee, so no commercial airliners will crash today.

Re:Worry about something else (1)

LGagnon (762015) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939333)

That's why you never see headlines like "Jill Larson Goes to the Market. Buys Coffee.
Actually, you do. They call these things commercials.

BBC already did this... (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938769)

The BBC did a documentary on this...and...

The best place is "near an exit door".

Statistically, most crashes are survivable if you can get out. The biggest impediment to getting out is the number of other people between you and the door. The ones who don't get out die of smoke/fire.

Front or back seat of a car (2, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938779)

provided you aren't driving. That is much more important question. Or even better yet, why in the hell are SUVs legal? An ever better question that can save many more lives!

Not on Oceanic 815... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938805)

... where all but one of the survivors from the tail section so far as been kidnapped or murdered.

Excuse me... (5, Informative)

AsmCoder8088 (745645) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938843)

The raw data from these 20 accidents has been languishing for decades in National Transportation Safety Board files, waiting to be analyzed by anyone curious enough to look and willing to do the statistical drudgework.

So, they are working off of a sample size of twenty??? Not sure if I would draw too many conclusions from this dataset.

Re:Excuse me... (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938957)

I had the exact same thought. At first I thought this might be kinda cool. Then I saw 20. Twenty? You have to be kidding.

Re:Excuse me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939057)

Don't worry they are working with Al-Qaeda to get more data soon.

Re:Excuse me... (1)

kfaroo (719510) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939047)

They had to discard the data from the other 5000 accidents where no one survived irrespective of where they were seated.

Re:Excuse me... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939229)

20 plane crashes is a bit different than 20 car crashes. Lets say the least populated plane had 150 people on board - thats a sample size of 3,000 people. Now compare that to a car with four people in it (extremely rare from what I've seen, but what the hell) - 80 people. Yup.

Re:Excuse me... (0, Redundant)

vought (160908) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939449)

So, they are working off of a sample size of twenty??? Not sure if I would draw too many conclusions from this dataset.


Exactly - and one of those twenty is Delta Air Lines flight 191 [wikipedia.org] - a freak accident in which the back of the aircraft separated and stopped, while the front of the airplane crashed into two four-million gallon water tanks, blew up, and killed everyone in it.

That's enough to skew your data right there. But I'm sure we'll hear all the funny quotes about "backing into mountains" anyway. The back of the airplane is barely safer - if you're in a crash that kills people, it's likely that the vast majority of the people on the airplane will die.

The MythBusters say it is the (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938921)

The MythBusters say it is the rear facing flight attendant seat in the back of the plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_2 )#Escape [wikipedia.org] Slide Parachute

Re:The MythBusters say it is the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939225)

I realize my family dinner conversation strays from the norm, but I figured that was the relatively logical conclusion (it's what we came up with). Back of the plane, because having a airbag of 400 people and many tons of steel is helps, rear facing because rear facing is much safer (and no whip lash), and the jump seats because jump seats have 5-point harnesses instead of shitty belts that's probably more likely to rip you in two rather than save you.

Is it expensive (3, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938923)

to get a seat inside the black box?

Re:Is it expensive (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939073)

It's the G forces that kill you. Even inside the "black box" you'd be splattered all over the front wall.

      If you're sitting in the back of a plane that hits the ground nose first, all that damage and crumpling buys you time since the plane is changing kinetic energy into "damage". By the time your section enters the impact zone (and yes we're talking milliseconds) you will have decelerated a little. This means less G forces when your section hits the ground (which is NOT that flexible and rather unforgiving), which might allow you to live. Provided the speed of impact was close to what was survivable. Then again, you might survive just long enough to be burned to death.

      Planes don't always hit the ground nose first, however. Looking on the bright side, it's over fairly quickly...

Re:Is it expensive (1)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939091)

to get a seat inside the black box?

Probably, but the shocks would still kill you, however, you can pickup a cheap black plastic bag at your local supermarket and pretend it's like the real thing. Warning though, do not try while driving. Better use your tinfoil hat.

I always choose the seat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938939)

adjacent to Cory Doctorow. If Death stops by, surely, it'll die (ha!) laughing at his stupid, stupid haircut.

excellent (3, Funny)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938983)

All those arrogant dicks in first class get to die first.

Re:excellent (0, Redundant)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939215)

These days most people in first class are very polite fliers for rather than being their by virtue of mad cash they are mostly there on frequent flier upgrades so they have a pretty good understanding of what bugs people about flying. Of course it never hurts that they usually had the champane over the oj when they sat down.

The real answer is different (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939119)

Deep vein thrombosis is more dangerous to travellers than crashes. In that light the answer to the safest place to sit is; choose an aisle seat. http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/airlines/deepve inthrombosis.html [pacificislandtravel.com]

With over 1 million passengers at any one time in the air and up to 10% medically unfit to fly, according to one estimate, problems both minor and serious are just as likely to happen at 7000 ft. as on the ground. Regardless of whether you are sitting in an airplane high in the sky or on the ground at the movies - one is suscptible to DVT, because the rate of blood flow to your lower limbs is reduced by about two thirds. According to sme estimates, there are about 2,000 passengers that die from the condition every year. "The airlines are not in the business of scaring people, " says Andrew Keller, Director of the Airport Medical Centre at Sydney's Kingsford Smith airport, who sees one person a day with leg swelling and perhaps one every two months with actual DVT. "There's always the risk of a terrorist boarding an aircraft: do you warn passengers about that too?"

http://www.karinya.com/dvt.htm [karinya.com]

It used to be (on the airlines I travelled on, I don't travel any more) that the bulkhead seats had significantly more leg room. That made them easier to get into and out of. It also made it easier to keep my legs moving.

Anti-EU much ? (0)

Altesse (698587) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939145)

Move to the back of the Airbus.
I find this sentence somewhat xenophobic and anti-european. Does this mean that an Airbus is more likely to crash than a Boeing ? Feh.

Re:Anti-EU much ? (3, Informative)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939231)

You are a little over sensitive.

"Move to the back of the bus." is a common phrase in America.

Re:Anti-EU much ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939305)

to - it means: (to be safe in case of crash) find an Airbus and take a seat in the back

Re:Anti-EU much ? (1, Troll)

toddhisattva (127032) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939419)

Are you kidding?

The damn tails fall off of Airbus planes.

Then they blame the pilot for being hard on the rudder. And some worthless US government functionary leans over forwards to appear fair, and goes along with blaming the dead pilot.

The pilot can dance a jig on the rudder pedals and the damn rudder should not fall off!

I have never been on a Airbus, and will try hard never to be on an Airbus.

They're cheap glued-together crap. Obviously the result of committees representing *multiple* socialist governments. Perhaps the second-worst way to design a passenger plane. The worst is a committee of a single big communist government.

Sure, the '37 had some rudder reversal issues a decade ago, but they did not come unglued during the excursions. Shareholders have limited patience, unlike governments.

And you'll not smear me with "xenophobia" or whatever the current socialist excuse for not thinking is. I'd get on a Japanese jumbo with no worries whatsoever, if they made any.

Here's hoping that Japan starts building heavy bombers and their civilian spin-off passenger liners. *Clink!*

Until then,

It's Boeing or I ain't going.

First Class (3, Funny)

15Bit (940730) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939285)

As a regular flier in cattle-class, i'd just like to say that its nice to see first class passengers getting the preferential treatment they deserve. First on, first off and first into the mountainside...

I want to die like my grandfather... (4, Funny)

microcars (708223) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939307)

peacefully in his sleep

not like the passengers in his car, screaming and yelling

The safest seat in a crash (2, Funny)

highlander76 (901551) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939315)

The safest seat in a crash is probably a window seat so God can better hear your pleas for him to save you.

What about up front? (1)

T-Bucket (823202) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939349)

I'm almost afraid to ask what the survival rate is for the people sitting up in FRONT of first class... I mean, they're the important ones! They deserve to live! (Though, I guess perhaps the alcohol will soften the blow a bit).

I disagree... (2, Funny)

keytohwy (975131) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939351)

On Lost, the ones towards the back were the first to be picked off by "the others." Only the front seats for me!

Sitting in back is counterproductive (4, Interesting)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 6 years ago | (#19939367)

According to this site [airlinesafety.com], if you fly every day, you'd get killed once every 19,000 years. That's about a 1 in 7 million odds per flight, which sounds about right.

When you sit in the back, it takes longer to get off of the plane because you have to wait for all the bozos in front of you to fumble for their personal belongings. I'd say that a conservative estimate is an average of 5 extra minutes. So before your first expected crash, you'd waste 5 * 7,000,000 minutes, or 66 solid years waiting at the back of planes. So to save each life, you're essentially using up an entire lifetime standing hunched over watching old codgers wrestle with their suitcases. (It's actually much worse than that, because only a fraction of fatal crashes even have a difference in outcome between the front and the back. A lot of times, everybody dies and sitting in the back doesn't help anyway.)

Lost (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939397)

The most talked about air plane accident on the internet in the past 3 years is the flight of "Oceanic Flight 815"

In "Oceanic Flight 815", more people survive the Head Section than the Tail Section.
In "Oceanic Flight 815", all the smart/leaders are from the head section.

conclusion:

If you are smart, a leader, or just recently won the lottery. Ignore the article and take the Head Section!

Move to the back of the Airbus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939411)

And what about Boeing? The options are:
  - don't enter one at all
  - move to the front of the Boeing
  - it does not matter what you do, you're toast anyway
  - move to the back of the Boeing as well

Or was that last line just a little bit of sarcastic USofAnism?

I'm a god damned pilot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19939439)

What fucking chance do I have according to this statistics? :P
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...