On Nov 4, 7:34 am, mrtravel wrote:
> Witherspoon Featherstone III wrote:
> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071027/tuk-sir-bobby-relives-1958...
>
> > Sir Bobby said the design of the plane saved his life.
>
> > "I have realised why it was - it was because the design of the
> > aircraft at that particular time was that half the seats were facing
> > forward and half of them backwards. All the ones that had their back
> > to the front of the aeroplane were the ones that survived," he said.
>
> Great. Other than a 70 year old's recollection of an event that happened
> 50 years ago, do you have any other evidence on the direction the
> surviviors versus the fatalites were sitting?
>
> It's not I don't agree that sitting backwards is safer with a frontal
> impact, but whether the statement that all of the backwards facing
> passengers survived or anything other than the statements of this one
> person. There really is a bit too little factual information in this
> article.
>
T'is fact! Think about it.
Collision injuries sustained during a transport collision accident
often takes the form of inertial injuries. An unrestrained body will
be thrown forward violently coming into contact with fixed objects.
Seat belts help but do not restrain the whole body. We have all heard
of whiplash injuries. A severe whiplash breaks the neck and is almost
invariably fatal. Even the intestines and stomach are wrenched forward
towards the soft underside of the body.
If on the other hand the subject sits facing away from the direction
of travel then the same inertial force pushes the whole of the body
back into the seat where the head in particular is supported. The
internal organs are pushed towards the pelvic region where support is
better.
> What does this have to do with uk.politics.misc?
Could it not come under the "misc" bit?
We do after all have to endure loads of crap regarding zionism,
holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories and the likes without
anybody asking the same question.,
|
