Jump from a plane about to crash

[aLeXmOrA]

Today while having lunch with my Squad mates, it came to my mind what would happen if you jump from a plane that is about to crash?

I know that when the plane crashes on land, it absorbes the impact and transfers to all the objects inside it... like when a car crashes. But, I was thinking... if you jump from it just a few meters to hit the ground, would you be killed or would you survive?

I don\'t know exactly what happen if you jump form the plane at that time, just before crashing. After leaving the plane, do you still have the same velocity or you start from 0?

That\'s what I was thinking, hehe.

Cheers.

[softweir]

At the moment after you jump you will have the same velocity - maybe minus a fraction of a m/s - as the plane. After that, it depends on what the plane is doing...

If the plane is power-diving towards the ground then it will be moving faster than your terminal velocity, in which case the sooner you jump the more time you have to reduce speed. It won\'t save you, but it may make your remains less horrifyingly mangled for rescuers to retrieve.

If, on the other hand, the plane is not under power and generally fairly level as it descends then you are safer on board. It\'s impact speed will be less than your terminal velocity would be if you jumped, and in addition you have a very large, aluminium crumple-cage around you plus seat harness that between them will absorb a considerable proportion of the impact. You are much more likely to walk away from a plane crash than survive a parachute-free free-fall! Of course, you will be concussed and the plane may catch fire or sink into a river, in which case you will be unable to save yourself from the aftermath of the crash, in which case falling would be a much quicker and possibly preferable death.

[Hypocee]

Classic high-school BS session fodder.

You only start from zero if your surname is Coyote.

Jumping only helps if you can jump at, say, 100m/s, or equivalently to a height of 500m.

[HAWK_180k]

What softweir said lol! (Had it all typed and everything ;P) But something I can add, somewhat of an anecdote but I believe that under some circumstances it is very true:

The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival!

[Guest GroundHOG-2010]

I depends on the type of plane and decent type.

Descending quickly (with or without power) in a airliner, you would be killed both ways unless you got out of the aircraft while it was at a decent height. The same thing happens with a small plane in this situation.

In a near level decent you might survive in the aircraft (depending on touchdown conditions) but would be certainly dead if you jumped out. In a small plane you would die in both situations.

In a unpowered near level decent you have a high possibility (in the grand scheme of things) of surviving in both aircraft, providing there is a good enough pilot (like me) flying the plane who doesn\'t stall the aircraft.

In all of them the plane does not stall or spin.

[what-the]

The only way I would see jumping to be beneficial is if you were able to flare the airplane at a low altitude to cut horizontal velocity and virtical velocity and jump into a tree. The flare may involve the use of the speed braker.

[your mom]

hes cool 8) but back on topic

i dont know but i think you would die because at the speed of the plane crashing i dont think you would have time to jump out and it might depend on the plane

[TwoHedWlf]

The only way I would see jumping to be beneficial is if you were able to flare the airplane at a low altitude to cut horizontal velocity and virtical velocity and jump into a tree. The flare may involve the use of the speed braker.

Then you\'re smacking face first into a tree at 100 miles per hour.

It\'s basically the same as the idea that if you are in a falling elevator and you jump just before it hits the bottom you\'ll be ok. No you won\'t. Unless you are some super human that has a strong enough skeleton and muscles to jump upwards at 50 meters per second. In which case you don\'t need to worry about hitting the ground anyway.

[Guest GroundHOG-2010]

there have been people survive falls like jumping out of a plane from several thousand feet.

[Reflector]

Assuming you survive that would die from the fire afterwards. Also assuming you clear any parts of the plane there (Assuming it isn\'t a spiraling fireball disintegrating around you.)

... Also I hope you can enjoy the acceleration forces of 'zeroing' or accelerating away from the plane with your jump, given you accelerate from '200m/s' to '0' (Relatively: Mach .6 to 'zero'). What, we\'re talking about doing that in under a second? (Easy math time: Half second)

You\'re talking about experiencing 40g for a half second, enjoy.

The fall doesn\'t kill you, it\'s the sudden stop... Oh wait, small problem there.

Or you can be real cool and try to stall the plane in such a manner where you impact the ground 'gently' enough so your fuel tanks don\'t rupture. Asking for lots of post stall control there too.

[DoctorEvo]

I don\'t know exactly what happen if you jump form the plane at that time, just before crashing. After leaving the plane, do you still have the same velocity or you start from 0?

You can\'t be serious.

You\'re talking about experiencing 40g for a half second, enjoy.

The fall doesn\'t kill you, it\'s the sudden stop...

You\'re wrong there. Instantaneous accelerations of over 100 Gs have been survived before, and in crash-testing fields a 50 G crash is commonly considered to be moderately harmful, but not fatal.

Or you can be real cool and try to stall the plane in such a manner where you impact the ground 'gently' enough so your fuel tanks don\'t rupture.

Or you could, y\'know, just land instead...

As a side note, the Antonov AN-2\'s emergency procedures includes a protocol emergency landing that involves placing the airplane in deep-stall and 'parachuting' to the ground. It would almost certainly wreck the airplane, but with that much wing area, I guess you\'d actually have a decent chance of surviving it.

[Guest GroundHOG-2010]

^ The AN-2 is a horrible example of a plane and a horrible plane at that. Soo many people say that its the worst plane they have ever flown.

EDIT

Look what I found on wikipedia.

As of October 06, 2011 there has been 387 hull-loss accidents of An-2, claiming the total of 365 human lives.[13] One of the most recent accidents occurred around noon on September 3, 2011 in Vinnytsia Oblast, Ukraine, where an Antonov An-2 was dusting crops and hit a treetop with its chassis while taking off after refueling. The plane tumbled down and hit the ground, bursting into flames, killing its 60 years old pilot

[DYJ]

I have never piloted an AN-2 so I\'m not going to argue in any direction, but most planes crash after hitting a tree.

And jumping out of a crashing plane is only recommended if you have a parachute and you are above minimum parachute operating altitude.

[Howson]

This explains it well

[what-the]

Then you\'re smacking face first into a tree at 100 miles per hour.

It\'s basically the same as the idea that if you are in a falling elevator and you jump just before it hits the bottom you\'ll be ok. No you won\'t. Unless you are some super human that has a strong enough skeleton and muscles to jump upwards at 50 meters per second. In which case you don\'t need to worry about hitting the ground anyway.

No. Flaring the aircraft with the speed braker will cut out as much horizontal velocity as possible while reducing further decent (For a short time). The aim is to jump when the energy of the craft is at minimum and jumping into a tree (at about the same altitude as the plane) where the branches are thin but plentiful. The maximum instantaneous forces exerted on the body will be significatly lower as the forces are exerted over a longer period of time.

[softweir]

No. Flaring the aircraft with the speed braker will cut out as much horizontal velocity as possible while reducing further decent (For a short time). The aim is to jump when the energy of the craft is at minimum and jumping into a tree (at about the same altitude as the plane) where the branches are thin but plentiful. The maximum instantaneous forces exerted on the body will be significatly lower as the forces are exerted over a longer period of time.

Typo - it\'s 'descent'. Decent is 'not being obscene, being fully clothed, fitting, appropriate' etc.

[Reflector]

You\'re wrong there. Instantaneous accelerations of over 100 Gs have been survived before, and in crash-testing fields a 50 G crash is commonly considered to be moderately harmful, but not fatal.

I love your Sovietesque language there: 'Moderately Harmful.' I heard jumping off a building from the third story and aiming to land first is 'Moderately Harmful' as well. Also I heard being shot in the stomach can be 'Moderately Harmful' as well. Something about it being eventually followed by the termination of heartbeat and brain activity, my Commissariat. Double love how you immediately accuse me of 'wrongfulness' out of nowhere. Also I like how you redefine 500ms as 'instantaneous' when in relative reference here. I\'ll let you be the rocket sled rider hitting the nice firm barrier there my friend.

... Also I hope you realize that you\'d need like 730kW output for a half second just to pull that from Mach .6 to 0 jump there. Last time I checked human biology, I don\'t think people\'s legs could pull that sort of output.

Or you could, y\'know, just land instead...

As a side note, the Antonov AN-2\'s emergency procedures includes a protocol emergency landing that involves placing the airplane in deep-stall and 'parachuting' to the ground. It would almost certainly wreck the airplane, but with that much wing area, I guess you\'d actually have a decent chance of surviving it.

I hope you realize the Colt is a wooden biplane. You could treat that like a glider at that point.

I also hope you also realize it is a comically sad aircraft that in this context, might as well imply you were very much joking about bringing it up because its existence is very much ignored by aerospace engineers.

I guess the sarcasm tags in my first post broke or something. Seeing my sarcasm is wrong or something.

[Iskierka]

I love your Sovietesque language there: 'Moderately Harmful.' I heard jumping off a building from the third story and aiming to land first is 'Moderately Harmful' as well. Also I heard being shot in the stomach can be 'Moderately Harmful' as well. Something about it being eventually followed by the termination of heartbeat and brain activity, my Commissariat. Double love how you immediately accuse me of 'wrongfulness' out of nowhere. Also I like how you redefine 500ms as 'instantaneous' when in relative reference here. I\'ll let you be the rocket sled rider hitting the nice firm barrier there my friend.

'Moderately harmful' usually means 'relatively minor wounds'; usually bruising and similar level injuries, minor fractures at the worst. It\'s also nice how you completely ignored the 'not fatal' part.

[Phoxtane]

'Moderately harmful'

Shouldn\'t it be 'Mostly Harmless'? But I digress...

[Reflector]

If we use '50%' as moderate (Since it is in the MIDDLE of the extremes) and then treat '100%' as 'pretty sure you\'re going to die' and '0%' as 'you just walk off like nothing happened' I think that implies it does something like, oh, you know... Moderate injuries. Moderate wounding.

However, I enjoy this Sovietesque revisionism, it goes in form with how many rockets just detonate on the launch pad. That was not a 'failure.' That was a 'moderate failure' because it 'got off the launch pad by a metre and detonated, taking out the crew capsule and the 4th prototype in the series.' Yes, 'minor' failure there. Just like a 'moderate leak' of RP-1 spewing out from the side is a 'minor' leak even as it ignites and detonates the rocket.

Could we have some more Newspeak in here? It really fits well with the atmosphere. No longer will we have 'cessation of life,' we will just have 'a moderate interruption of life functions.' Just like the world economy is 'moderately annoyed' by the financial troubles, ergo we should carry on as if nothing is happening since it is, after all, a MINOR problem.

[Iskierka]

A) You assume a linear scale. You assume 'severely/extremely harmful' would mean death. Usually you\'d stop before danger of death and go onto different danger listings. Such as 'danger of death', which would usually start appearing while the odds aren\'t all -that- high.

For example, a moderate brain injury. Doesn\'t sound too nice, but ... only a day in hospital? Fairly minor residual effects? Doesn\'t sound particularly dangerous either, and this is to the most vulnerable part of you. Judging from this, you can fairly readily say moderately harmful is perfectly survivable. A 'moderate' dose of radiation is one above the norm, but well within lethal limits. 'Moderate' drinking is drinking more than the norm, but not to an extent that it causes problems.

Might want to double-check how 'moderate' is used.

[DoctorEvo]

^ The AN-2 is a horrible example of a plane and a horrible plane at that. Soo many people say that its the worst plane they have ever flown.

EDIT

Look what I found on wikipedia.

I hope you\'re joking. The AN-2 was produced in truly MASSIVE numbers. For an aircraft as numerous as it is, 365 hull-loss accidents is not bad at all. I just did a quick query of NTSB hull-loss accident reports for the Cessna 172, and I count over four hundred in JUST THE LAST TWENTY YEARS, with even more fatalities.

It may be ugly, but it\'s a fine-flying airplane, and the fact that it flies so darned slow means it\'s less likely to kill you than just about anything else out there.

I love your Sovietesque language there: 'Moderately Harmful.' I heard jumping off a building from the third story and aiming to land first is 'Moderately Harmful' as well. Also I heard being shot in the stomach can be 'Moderately Harmful' as well. Something about it being eventually followed by the termination of heartbeat and brain activity, my Commissariat. Double love how you immediately accuse me of 'wrongfulness' out of nowhere. Also I like how you redefine 500ms as 'instantaneous' when in relative reference here. I\'ll let you be the rocket sled rider hitting the nice firm barrier there my friend.

50 Gs for half a second is not likely to result in death. Severe contusions, certainly; broken bones, quite possibly; but unless you forgot to buckle up, death is improbable.

... Also I hope you realize that you\'d need like 730kW output for a half second just to pull that from Mach .6 to 0 jump there. Last time I checked human biology, I don\'t think people\'s legs could pull that sort of output.

I never implied such a jump was possible.

But just so we\'re totally clear,

NO, YOU WOULD NOT SURVIVE JUMPING OUT OF AN AIRPLANE JUST PRIOR TO CRASHING.

Such a notion is so utterly absurd, I felt it didn\'t even need to be said.

And another thing, planes don\'t fly at mach 0.6 close to the ground unless they\'re fighter jets with the afterburners lit. Realistically, you\'re looking at closer to mach 0.25 for a typical airliner at low altitude in landing configuration (which pilots will try to achieve prior to crashing if at all possible), or 0.35 for one in cruise configuration.

I hope you realize the Colt is a wooden biplane. You could treat that like a glider at that point.

I also hope you also realize it is a comically sad aircraft that in this context, might as well imply you were very much joking about bringing it up because its existence is very much ignored by aerospace engineers.

IT WAS A SIDE NOTE

HENCE THE WORDS 'As a side note'

SHEESH ???

[Reflector]

I see, so you use 'moderate' in the format of the more conservative 'V-1s are raining around us and things are just moderately fine!' I love the Orwellian remix!

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/tbi.htm

Yes, yes. I assume moderate injuries all over the body does not cumulatively add up to this 'massive total body injuries.' Nope, not at all! Keep on rolling my Comissiarat, soon we can change the very way people think with the power of Newspeak!

OK. I will let you fly the anti-plane, seeing that it inspires pain and gag reflexes in others including those who fly the Cessna 172. Also I\'m pretty sure powered gliders have a much, much lower stall airspeed than the Colt there... That and something about 'not sucking.'

You comprehend that even if someone were to zero out midair at 2km up in their air, they are going to die from the fall, yes? Or even at 100m they\'re most likely not going to survive the fall.

That is ASSUMING (Since you act as if that 40g jump was possible) they jump out of the plane. Oh wait, you\'re still falling. Right, just got rid of that nasty horizontal component.

500ms is not a short, 'instanteous,' period compared to, oh, say, 100ms. Half a second of sustained 40g will screw you up. A 100ms spike, not so much. That\'d be closer to something you\'d experience in an automobile accident at peak.

Oh right, this... Peak thing. Apparently that is ignored too.

[Capt'n Skunky]

[mod]Keep it civil folks![/mod]

Cheers!

Capt\'n Skunky

KSP Forum Moderator

[DoctorEvo]

I see, so you use 'moderate' in the format of the more conservative 'V-1s are raining around us and things are just moderately fine!' I love the Orwellian remix!

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/tbi.htm

Yes, yes. I assume moderate injuries all over the body does not cumulatively add up to this 'massive total body injuries.' Nope, not at all! Keep on rolling my Comissiarat, soon we can change the very way people think with the power of Newspeak!

If you are properly restrained, such serious brain trauma will not occur.

Such trauma typically occurs from things such as, say, hitting your head on the dash or on the ground after a long fall. Furthermore, crash test dummies are equipped with 100 G (that\'s ONE HUNDRED, not fifty) accelerometers in their head that are usually used to determine ultimately whether the crash was fatal or not.

OK. I will let you fly the anti-plane, seeing that it inspires pain and gag reflexes in others including those who fly the Cessna 172. Also I\'m pretty sure powered gliders have a much, much lower stall airspeed than the Colt there... That and something about 'not sucking.'

But I DO fly the Cessna 172, among others.

And the Schweizer 2-33 (a slow, 1930s-designed glider) which I first learned to fly in stalled faster than the AN-2 does, so I\'m pretty sure your presumption that motor gliders (which are obviously heavier) can fly even slower is incorrect.

You comprehend that even if someone were to zero out midair at 2km up in their air, they are going to die from the fall, yes? Or even at 100m they\'re most likely not going to survive the fall.

That is ASSUMING (Since you act as if that 40g jump was possible) they jump out of the plane. Oh wait, you\'re still falling. Right, just got rid of that nasty horizontal component.

I\'m not at odds with you on this.

IF YOU JUMP, YOU WILL DIE.

I\'m not denying that.

My remark that 50 Gs is survivable was not meant to imply the human body is capable of JUMPING at 50 Gs.

500ms is not a short, 'instanteous,' period compared to, oh, say, 100ms. Half a second of sustained 40g will screw you up. A 100ms spike, not so much. That\'d be closer to something you\'d experience in an automobile accident at peak.

Half a second IS considered an instantaneous event, though. Most of John P. Stapp\'s rocket sled tests involved velocities exceeding 400 MPH. With some simple, elementary school math, you\'ll see that his INSTANTANEOUS tests - which ranged from 20 to over 45 Gs - were all half a second or longer.

NON-instantaneous accelerations are those which are long enough to incapacitate simply due to a lack of circulation. Thus, about 2-3 seconds is where things go from instantaneous to sustained.

Oh right, this... Peak thing. Apparently that is ignored too.

Well I already stated that the common threshold at which crashes, etc. are deemed fatal is at least twice the acceleration that we\'re discussing, so that\'s a fairly large margin already.

On top of that, properly-restrained racecar drivers have survived accelerations exceeding 100 Gs on many occasions, including at least one case of over 200 Gs.

Keep it civil folks!

Cheers!

Capt\'n Skunky

KSP Forum Moderator

I\'m trying to...