It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


BRACE BRACE BRACE....! Is the 'crash position' 'designed' to kill you quick?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 03:20 AM
I've been doing alot of flying recently and during the course of my trips the thought of what would happen in the event of a crash entered my mind.

I know plane crashes are rare and actually the chances of surviving one are pretty remote but say you were to survive the initial impact I think if you adopted the crash position your odds of surviving will have been severely lessened.

Just thinking about it it would seem likely that adopting current positions would seriously increase the chances of breaking your neck on the seats infront and your legs being broken by the collapsing seets and floor.

Personally I think a better position could be, (keeping seatbelt on) crouching on the seat in the feotal position holding your legs tightly in and keeping your head tight into your knees. This should prevent your head taking the initial impacts against the seats infront and keep your legs from being broken by the collapsing seats.

Now this would obviously only work for the able bodied and the fit and maybe thats why there is only one brace position for everyone rather than having two and saying if you use this other one your much more likley to survive.

I'm not saying there is any conspiracy here, just wondering if anyone else has had similar thoughts or ideas?


posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 03:37 AM
I think it's more along the line of thinking that you will have carry on baggage flying everywhere and a good direct hit to your head from that, at those speeds, would mean instant death where as with the neck even broken you may still be able to walk away from the crash.

Either way chances of surviving an aircraft accident that occurs while in air is pretty much slim to none. If it were me I would take the chance of jumping out the door and maybe surviving the landing on the ground as opposed to try and fight my way out of a burning plane assuming it doesn't just explode on impact.

Considering the are many skydivers who have survived free fall and impacting the earth (well actually they usually survive by hitting a bush or falling through trees or in one case landed in the mud on his shoulder) I would take my chances there. I'm surprised no ones tried it before considering the only thing you have to worry about is impact where in a plane there's more than just the impact that can kill you.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:16 AM
Nah the brace position is meant to prevent injury in the case of say a belly landing or sea landing which does have some chance of survival.
If your going to die, your going to die it doesn't matter how you sit.
Its not to kill you quicker, nothing could kill you quicker or slower, if its a catastrophe your just dead, you'd be instantly crushed into a splattered blown up mess.
Its meant to simply minimize injury in the event of non catastrophic emergency landings.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:20 AM
eeww, creepy thought .....a severed C-spine would be less painful than burning to death though.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:53 AM
I've read this question before somewhere. I understand that the positions we assume nowadays has been agreed on through the trial and error of many willing and 'surprise' participants. I found a standard Airline instructional video here, it shows a few crashes also. More interestingly, MythBusters have a done a show on killer Brace Positions. I knew I'd heard the question before somewhere. It must be one that gets asked frequently.

My initial thought was, "Why would anyone intentionally teach people a dangerous crash position?" Rescue services much prefer dealing with live people. Removing multiple broken and dead bodies creates more physical work and then there's all that paper work. Insurance company payouts, insurance premium raises. Then you have passengers no longer trusting aircraft due to the high fatalities involved during crashes.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 05:55 AM
the crash position is of course mostly worthless, it's like duck&cover in case of atomic flash.

that said, i think the logic is that your spine won't be compressed in high rate of descent belly landings. it might just break your neck, as the OP pointed out, which means less people in wheelchairs, who are of course infintely more of a hassle.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 06:14 AM
I remember an old science teacher of mine telling us all that the only reason why the position is adopted at all is to increase the chance that your body can be identified from the wreckage, not to increase your chance of survival.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 06:18 AM
I'm not really saying there is anything too wrong with the current crash positions just that there may well be better positions to adopt that would increase your survival chances and reduce the risk of injury.

Say you were to survive the initial impact but had adopted the std 'crash position' chances are your legs would be trapped by the collapsing seats. I just don't think having your legs under the seat or on the floor in a crash situation is a good place for them to be.

On a very recent long haul flight I found I was able to crouch on the seat, tuck my legs in tight, adjust the seatbelt tension, use the provided head cushion and tuck my head into said cushion there by protecting my face, (admittedly my wife did dive me some very odd looks and ask me WTH I was doing


posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 06:44 AM
Can't remember where I heard the answer, but as far as I know, and it does make perfect sense, the crash postion protects the face to a greater extent, therfore preventing damage to the dental region. For identification purposes later. Gruesome, but I'm sure I heard it on a documentary about the self same subject.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:44 AM
i always thought you could jump out just before the plane hits the ground breaking your legs but surviving

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by fatdad
i always thought you could jump out just before the plane hits the ground breaking your legs but surviving

I imagine that would be like throwing yourself into the side of a speeding train. The initial impact anyway

[edit on 4-1-2009 by dodgygeeza]

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:25 AM
It was a myth on Mythbusters. But I forgot what their conclusion was.

Oh, someone already mentioned that. I'm sorry.

[edit on 1/4/09 by enjoies05]

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:34 AM
Weather you survive a airplane crash is more on the lines of:
If you are right with the angels that day VS. ANY position you could get your body into.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:37 AM
If there is a conspiracy in this I guess it would be that for insurance companies and airliners it costs ALOT less in payouts for a death then for an injurie.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:51 PM
if i'm on a plane that's going down

my position will be

stick my head between my legs;
and kiss my -ss goodbye!!!!!

i know,,,, i didn't add anything substantial,,, rough sunday morning

but,,,,, i fear heights and plane chrashes

i just can't step on a plane----i'm scared to death of them

i missed senior trip,,, and many vacations because of that fear

and yet i love airshows and fighter planes etc
go figure

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:55 PM
It's to make you feel safer. The truth is, if your plane is going to crash, you're probably going to die, regardless of what position you assume.

It's like the old "duck and cover" things they taught kids in school in case of nuclear war. The truth is, it's not going to matter if you duck and cover or not if a nuclear bomb explodes down the street from the school. The purpose of "duck and cover" was to make children feel more at ease and less worried about death.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:01 PM
I was never much on positions but I can tell you one thing.
When they walk ya through the little Emergency blurb before taking off?
And they say - “In the case of cabin depressurization should a yellow mask fall in down in front of your face, pull it towards you securing the mask securely over your nose and mouth, and breath normally*...

You gotta be kidding me!

Breath Normally?

That happens I’ll be sucking air like a hover NOT breathing normally!

Oh, and I like the fetal position thing.
Makes sense to me!


[edit on 4-1-2009 by silo13]

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
Personally I think a better position could be, (keeping seatbelt on) crouching on the seat in the feotal position holding your legs tightly in and keeping your head tight into your knees.

Yea I think that would work better for some people, like my self for instance I'm fairly slim and not too tall (male) and I could easily adopt that position... But not everyone can, I'm thinking of the larger person, or the older person. So my take on the advised position is that it's the best compromise. You can't go confusing people when they have an emergency situation - they will barley be functioning any way, best to keep it simple, but I think I would personally go for the foetal position.

Oh yhea -I would have really got to know the seat belt buckle as well, lots of people who could of survived don't because they panic with the buckle and burn / choke to death.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 03:21 PM
I've been wondering. Are you actually allowed to take a parachute in your carry on luggage?

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:07 PM

Originally posted by thematrix
I've been wondering. Are you actually allowed to take a parachute in your carry on luggage?

Most likely.. But it would be useless really. There is no room in the cabin to get your rig on, not to mention you would get killed pretty quick jumping out at cruising speed/altitude. You'd either slam into the door, or get sucked into the engines.

Doesn't sound too fun...

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in