5 ms·

On the positive side, if they had made a crash landing with so little fuel, there would not likely have been a fiery explosion, and many more passengers would h

On the positive side, if they had made a crash landing with so little fuel, there would not likely have been a fiery explosion, and many more passengers would have survived than normal?

jacquesm 1y ago
Air + fuel explodes just fine. You really don't want to crash an airliner. At landing speed the number of people dead will still be > 0 and the remainder has a good chance of being injured seriously. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951 This happened at landing speed (the airport is only a few hundred meters from the crash site) and the plane was at the end of its flight from Turkey, it did not catch fire. Still, 9 people perished and the remainder were all but one injured 11 of them seriously.
- deadbabe 1y ago
  Only 7% died, pretty good for a plane of that size with a rough landing.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Yes, even though that is a harsh conclusion to make and for the families involved of course it doesn't matter at all. But as these come this was bad but still not nearly as bad as it could have been. They were about to cross one of the busiest highways in NL, another 100 meters and it would have been an entirely different story. The field they landed in is in the Haarlemmermeerpolder, so clay and it had just been plowed.
  - 12_throw_away 1y ago
    Dunno about "only" ... 99.99998% of flights kill 0% of their passengers. Even if "just" one passenger dies in an incident, your flight is already in the 0.00002th percentile for safety, very bad!
- PunchyHamster 1y ago
  that was equipment failure crew had to fight it, not something predictable like running out of fuel
eCa 1y ago
> and many more passengers would have survived than normal? This[1] kind of crash landing is very rare (in that case there was no fire despite being immediately after take off, perhaps because of the cold). Normally an outcome like this is only reasonable to expect if you actually reach a runway despite being out of fuel. Like Gimli[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_System_Flight_751 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_System_F... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
cosmicgadget 1y ago
Well there'd probably be a fire but not a sustained fire which would improve survivability.
tclancy 1y ago
Username checks out. I don’t think the fire is your first concern in a plane crash.

On the positive side, if they had made a crash landing with so little fuel, there would not likely have been a fiery explosion, and many more passengers would have survived than normal?

jacquesm 1y ago

Air + fuel explodes just fine. You really don't want to crash an airliner. At landing speed the number of people dead will still be > 0 and the remainder has a good chance of being injured seriously. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951 This happened at landing speed (the airport is only a few hundred meters from the crash site) and the plane was at the end of its flight from Turkey, it did not catch fire. Still, 9 people perished and the remainder were all but one injured 11 of them seriously.

deadbabe 1y ago
Only 7% died, pretty good for a plane of that size with a rough landing.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Yes, even though that is a harsh conclusion to make and for the families involved of course it doesn't matter at all. But as these come this was bad but still not nearly as bad as it could have been. They were about to cross one of the busiest highways in NL, another 100 meters and it would have been an entirely different story. The field they landed in is in the Haarlemmermeerpolder, so clay and it had just been plowed.
- 12_throw_away 1y ago
  Dunno about "only" ... 99.99998% of flights kill 0% of their passengers. Even if "just" one passenger dies in an incident, your flight is already in the 0.00002th percentile for safety, very bad!
PunchyHamster 1y ago
that was equipment failure crew had to fight it, not something predictable like running out of fuel

eCa 1y ago

> and many more passengers would have survived than normal? This[1] kind of crash landing is very rare (in that case there was no fire despite being immediately after take off, perhaps because of the cold). Normally an outcome like this is only reasonable to expect if you actually reach a runway despite being out of fuel. Like Gimli[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_System_Flight_751 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_System_F... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

cosmicgadget 1y ago

Well there'd probably be a fire but not a sustained fire which would improve survivability.

tclancy 1y ago

Username checks out. I don’t think the fire is your first concern in a plane crash.