3 ms·
Decent, given that the current fatality count is 11 out of 91 passengers and an unspecified number of crew. Certainly the fatality count will rise, but with mo
by ashtonkem 6y ago
Decent, given that the current fatality count is 11 out of 91 passengers and an unspecified number of crew.
Certainly the fatality count will rise, but with modern planes survival tends to be more about escaping the post crash fire. If >50% of the passengers and crew live, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
- tyingq 6y agoI'd expect a lower survival rate as it appears to have crashed into buildings, and not into a field or similar.
- ashtonkem 6y agoCrashing in a city means that you crash into buildings that are both flammable and hinder escape, as you’ve said. But it also means that you’re crashing near a means of rescue, rather than having to wait precious minutes for rescue services to locate you. Only time will tell which of these factors was more important. Good news is that crashes on landing tend to involve a lot less fuel, which should improve survival chances significantly.
- sb8244 6y agoI read this earlier today and was hopeful that fatality count would be low. Just shocked to see a final count of 2 survivors total.