USA Today ran this article mentioning some TV folks were getting some heat for deliberately crashing a jet into the desert, and now the Today show is giving teasers that this is “controversial”.
Let’s see… the Discovery channel and apparently some other players making a TV series purchased a 727 and set it up to be crashed empty in an uninhabited location where no one would be hurt and nothing (other than the airplane) broke. Presumably, they also cleared this with the FAA and they are reported to also being engaged in a clean up of the crash site.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with this. The people who set this up claim there will be a scientific/research benefit but even if there wasn’t I don’t have an issue with people doing what they will with their property so long as no one is hurt and nothing (other than the object they own) is damaged.
So… what’s the problem here? Someone might get hurt? It seems they took ample precautions to make sure that wouldn’t happen. OMIGOD, they crashed an airplane? Well, heck, we crash cars and trucks and Og knows what else while making movies for pure entertainment and hopes of profits, why not an airplane? There have been research crashes of airplanes before, why would this one be controversial? Because it’s not a government but private companies doing it? The auto companies do crash testing, why would this be different? Because footage will be used to entertain? What? We can’t get maximum use out of the footage? We don’t forbid showing car crash video, why would this be different? Because it’s an airplane? Why should that make a difference?
Sounds to me like a case of “I don’t understand it and it scares me so you can’t do it” to me. What do you think?
I see nothing wrong here. If you want big data, sometimes you have to make a big mess.
My best guess is that some folks want to accuse Discovery and Friends of doing this for sensational rather than purely educational or scientific reasons. This may have “flown” better with them if Boeing and the FAA or NTSB were involved. However, I don’t recall seeing any outrage whenever Mythbusters destroys things. (Well, other than that cannon ball through an occupied home thing a couple of months ago.)
Hopefully the data the obtained won’t be specific to the 727, since Boeing stopped building those over 25 years ago. I’m guessing the unlucky bird was sourced from the desert boneyard at a price close to “We need the space - please get it out of here!” rather than the bazillions it would cost to buy a current model.
From the looks of the 727 crash, it appears that First Class is a bad place to sit. I think I’ll stick with preferring a seat over the wingbox.
I saw the Today show bit and I have a couple clarifications/corrections.
First of all, this crash was conducted in MEXICO. This fact becomes significant in regards to some of the criticism. It also means my prior statement regarding clearing this with the FAA is in error - the FAA would not be involved in Mexican airspace. Until it is proven otherwise, I’m going to assume they cleared this as necessary in Mexico.
One of the criticisms being brought up is that Discovery Channel, et al did not “invite” the FAA and/or NTSB to the crash site. Well, folks, it’s like this - the crash site is in MEXICO. The FAA and NTSB are US agencies. They don’t have jurisdiction in Mexico. If the Mexican equivalent of those agencies asked them for input I’m pretty sure they’d be happy to give it, but until the Mexican authorities ask the FAA and NTSB aren’t getting involved.
Discovery, et al say they used industry experts and former professional crash investigators, as well as documenting all this left, right, and center. While they don’t want to release their footage until the series episode airs (they do, after all, have to make a living) I’m pretty sure they’ll be happy to share it with any agencies or industry groups/companies that could use the data collected.
There also seems to be “concern” that this is more about entertainment than education. As I said before, so what? I suspect there will be some educational value in all this but while no one seems to bat an eyelid when an equivalent tonnage or dollar value of cars are smashed up to make a movie the fact it’s an airplane seems to wig some people out.
From the title I was thinking that this would be something along the lines of the early-1980s Controlled Impact Demonstration. What I saw was nothing to get excited about.
I wonder how the people upset about this would react to the idea that F-4s have long since been converted into drones and are shot down or otherwise crashed on a not infrequent basis.
I think that if you gussy up that quote a little, you’ve got a ready-made all purpose political/moral/Standards & Practices platform.
(Slightly more) seriously, though, I’m also guessing it’s easier to attract press and viewers by saying something is “controversial” than just “we’re blowing something big up for sweeps month.” Probably cheaper, too.
My father would be upset, but then again he spent a large chunk of his young adulthood flying Phantoms in Japan, Korea and Vietnam.
Yeah - looks like a nice controlled crash to create a tv episode full of good pictures, scary quotes, etc. Points to them if they add in how fast an airplane bottle of Jack Daniels is going at crash time, and whether it can penetrate your skull or other such fun stuff. This is just a big budget Myth Busters / Scare Tactic / Details at 11 type filming.
Got to say, it’s not a particularly exciting crash. I doubt many (any) crashes happen like that unless the wheels fail to extend…I suppose any crash data for airplanes is helpful though.
Did anyone else read the “pilot ejected seconds before impact” line in the YouTube description. Sounds like a lot of things needed to go right for that guy. Yikes.
Anyone concerned with the “waste” from crashing a 727 must have been horrified by the Cash for Clunkers program. Destroying ~700,000 cars seems far more wasteful.
Ejected from the cockpit? Sounds a bit fishy to me, a 727 ain’t no F-15, you can’t just eject from the cockpit. My immediate assumption was that it was remotely piloted, however I don’t know that for sure of course.
If I was gonna go to the trouble to buy a remote-piloted airliner and crash it for fun, I’d record it with something a little better than my cellphone camera.
The person with the cellphone camera was basically a tourist who happened to be nearby - the actual owners of the plane had a crapload of cameras and stuff on the plane, no doubt of much higher quality.
I say we go whole hog and do a whole range of possible variations on air mayhem. Get a small flight of retired jetliners, rig them for RC, and if you can get a large enough expanse of desert, do a high-angle dive, a crash into rough uneven terrain with obstacles, straight and level into a cliff face both perpendicular and at an angle, try a flaps-set-wrong-one-engine-quits takeoff, have one put through extreme aerobatics until you fly it apart, etc.
I saw that on the national news last night and I didn’t see anything controversial about it.
Assuming they had all the right permission from the Mexican government and they’re going to clean up the debris, fuel etc. wrecking a plane for scientific research bugs me a lot less than the gratuitous blowing up of stuff they do on Mythbusters.
See, I would have thought people were already doing it. They crash cars as part of testing. I would have thought that people routinely crash all the big aircraft to study their response in various conditions.
Aircraft crash-testing has been done before, but since even a small jet is vastly more expensive than 99.99% of autos there’s a real financial incentive to do less such testing in aircraft. On the other hand, at least in the US, every airplane crash is supposed to be investigated, whereas not every car accident is, in hopes of obtaining information from said crashes.
