Let’s say I fell out of an airplane 20,000 feet up and I don’t have a parachute. Obviously the odds are really against me surviving the sudden stop at the end but it has happened from time to time. Let’s also say this happened over what looks like rural Ohio; plenty of farmland, not much trees, and little water in sight. Is there a way I could try to hit the ground to maximize my chances to survive?
Any quick suggestions would be appreciated.
In order of priority:
Aim for the twenty foot deep snow drift.
Cling to the largish section of plane that has a lot of drag to it (and preferable some cushioning).
Aim for the hardest surface you can find, because without one of the first two you are going to be dead and it would be best if you didn’t have a few moments of excruciating pain while vomiting up your internal organs first.
Best Way to Survive Falling at Terminal Velocity (Need answer fast)
Best. Thread Title. Ever.
I heard about a parachutist that survived a fall. Apparently, the key to her survivial was the fact that she landed flat on her side. Her foot, ankle, knee, pelvis, elbow, and shoulder all impacted at the same time. She also landed in a recently plowed field. Don’t remember if she ever walked again though. Isn’t there an Uncle Cecil column on this subject?
Here it is:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050311.html
Before the 20-foot snowdrift, look for some trees. Grab & break a few branches on the way down.
Do you feel lucky? Well, do you?
The other way to survive is to land on a steep slope, preferably one which gradually turns into a shallow slope. This is generally how they do the recovery on those amusement park free-fall rides.
And if there’s no snow around, deep mud is nearly as good. I think one of the known cases of a person surviving a high-speed impact was a marsh landing. And if you’re falling over farmland, a manure pile will work, too: The stink is much better than the alternative.
Vesna Vulovic, a stewardess who survived a 30,000 ft fall from a bombed airplane, did so by landing on the steep slope of a snow covered mountain. She was also surrounded by parts of the fuselage IIRC she was in the loo at the time.
A brief bit on her and two others- it seems landing through some pine trees would be good too.
From 20,000 feet up, our unlucky skydiver will take about 2 minutes to reach the ground. The first answer in this thread came 4 minutes after the OP.
Just Some Guy, you alright, buddy?
So, in the loo with a stewardess is the best bet?
Aaaaaand…she never reached terminal velocity because the front of the plane exploded. She was in the tail section which was still attached to the majority of the plane including both wings. The plane went into a flat spin never reaching terminal velocity.
A budy of mine took a drunken fall of a fifth floor balcony and landed on a parked car. He suffered very minor bruising but thats it. Doubt he was able to reach terminal velocity or even close though. Still, try getting drunk and looking for a car to land on.
This wasn’t here when I posted:
That’s the worst possible way to land. If you absolutely must land on something flat and relatively unyielding, it’s best to stretch yourself out as tall and vertical as possible, to give yourself the maximum distance over which to decelerate. You’ll break both your legs, but you might, if you’re really really lucky, survive.
If you’re landing in something deeper than you are tall, like the afore-mentioned 20 foot snow drift, then optimal landing orientation depends on how yielding the material is, and how much of it there is. If the snow is very loose, then landing spread-eagle flat might be good.
When you hear someone say, “Their chute didn’t open, but they lived,” they usually mean, “Their chute was in a big streamer-like mess behind them that, while not acting like a regular parachute, created a huge amount of drag to slow them a great deal so they lived.”
I’m no physics guy- why would an explosion prevent terminal velocity? I always assumed if you were high enough you would reach the speed automatically?
Actually the doctors interviewed about this incident specifically said that had she landed feet first should would have certainly died. They explained that feet first landing would have invariably crushed her spine as opposed to spreading the point of impact along the horizontal axis of her body. You mention maximum distance to decelerate, at those speeds you ain’t going to decelerate much in the 5 feet between the ground and your head. My guess is the head will impact the ground at the same speed whether you land feet first or head first.
Be a character on Grey’s Anatomy.
The explosion did not prevent achieving terminal velocity, the flat spin did.
The explosion didn’t, the fact that most of the plane was still there did. In fact it did reach terminal velocity, but terminal velocity of a plane with its wings in a flat spin is a hell of a lot lower than that of a person falling on their own.
Oh, and I think you are confused about the landing on the side thing. It sounds suspicious like the standard parachutists landing technique, except for that you hit those body parts one at a time, rolling into it in order spread out the impact and slow the rate at which you come to a stop.
You mean the rotation of the section of the plane she was in? If so, it didn’t eventually start to fall straight down and gain the needed speed? Physics and I don’t get along…
ETA: flight answered this after my post.
Landing flat on you back would spread the impact to a greater area, but it’s not going to slow your internal organs much. I imagine the force of your brain hitting your skull at near terminal velocity would suck hard core.
Apparently what you want to do is to land more or less vertically, but then falling/rolling so you sequentially take the force on your (bent) legs, butt, side, and shoulders – in other words, spreading out the impact as much as possible.
(Info vaguely remembered from a webpage on survivors of long falls, but more or less duplicated here.)
Shield your head with your arms if possible.