Plane crash TV: Channel 4 to destroy passenger jet

[Mr. Sparkle]

A passenger jet is to be deliberately crash-landed as part of a scientific experiment on Channel 4 that the broadcaster hopes will be one of its biggest hits of next year.

Two pilots will parachute from the 300-seat airliner after setting it on autopilot to crash at high speed into the desert. The plane will be loaded with cameras and sensors recording the impact of the crash, which Channel 4 said would provide invaluable information about how planes react in potentially fatal accidents.

The time and location of the crash are being kept under wraps by the broadcaster, which will air the documentary, Plane Crash, next year.

The head of Channel 4, Julian Bellamy, said Plane Crash would be "one of the most ambitious and audacious TV events of 2010".

"It is an extraordinary idea and only Channel 4 would be brave enough to do it," he said today. "Not even aircraft manufacturers have crashed something this big."

The programme-makers said footage and data from the plane would provide an "unprecedented insight" into what happens when a plane crashes, enabling experts to study how areas such as seatbelt design, seat arrangement and overhead baggage can have an impact on passenger safety.

"As well as making spectacular television, we hope Plane Crash will be one of the most useful experiments ever in the history of aviation," said producer Geoff Deehan, of independent production company Dragonfly.

"It will give us unprecedented answers to the big question: how can we make air crashes more survivable?"

The plane will be piloted by two former US navy pilots, who will set its autopilot to crash-land before ejecting from the airliner. In case of system failure, it will also be remote controlled from a helicopter and from another control unit on the ground.

The idea for the programme grew out of the crash of a British Airways Boeing 777 at Heathrow airport in January last year. It baffled aeronautical engineers because the structure of the plane did not react the way scientific modelling had predicted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/12/plane-crash-tv-channel-4

[tularetom]

1. Wow, Mythbusters on steroids!

It's a naked shameless ploy for ratings not a scientific experiment, but who cares? Hope they show it here in the US.

[BeFree]

2. Huh?

"In case of system failure, it will also be remote controlled from a helicopter and from another control unit on the ground."

Actually it should read "In case of human failure, it will also be remote controlled from a helicopter and from another control unit on the ground."

Remote control? Can they remote control passenger jets?

[happyslug]

4. The US had remote Control Four engine bombers during WWII

Jack Kennedy's older Brother Joe Jr was killed as part of the project. The technology was NOT yet available in the 1940s but the research was on-going (The Germans even used a guided missile during WWII for example). By the 1960s remote control was fully operational but could be jammed given the radio technology of the time period, but that started to change in the 1970s (Basically the same Technology that permitted cell phones also made is very hard to jam radio transmission to the plane).

Even today, the biggest concern with remote control planes is maintaining commutations (Given enemy actions to block such communications) with the plane then any other problem. In the case being discussed the biggest hurtle is getting the plane up in the air (what Joe Kennedy was doing when he was killed) and today that can be done by remote control (unless something goes wrong that the radio control operator can not see). Unless the plane is taking off from a high use Airport, it could be radio controlled from the time it takes off (The fact most airports are high use is probably why the pilots are flying the plane and then jumping as oppose to 100% radio control and that concern has more to do with airport regulations then any real concern with the technology).

Except for the ability of potential enemies blocking communications between the plane and the operator, we could be flying almost all of today's plane by remote control (In fact one of the arguments against the new Air Force fighter is that by the time it 100% replaces the F-15, we will have the technology to end most man operated missions for high end fighters, in effect by the time it replaces the F-15, it will be obsolete). We are NOT quite there yet, it is still possible to block communications and to have the place operate outside areas where we can communicate to it, but that is rapidly coming to an end.

My point is simple, remote control of this plane is no big deal today absent someone trying to block such remote control (and no one is planning to do that in this case). We can operate planes by remote control with ease. The hardest part of operating a plane is NOT flying it, but taking off and landing it. Since this plane is NOT going to land but crash the only real concern is taking off. The pilots will be one board to take off, the rest of the flight is easy.

[BeFree]

5. So...

What will they do, have a set target on the ground, with maybe a transponder of some sort to guide the jet in to that point? I mean, if there is system failure, the damn thing could fly around the world, eh?

[happyslug]

6. With modern GPS, they can crash that plane anywhere they want to.

With GPS system to determine where the plane is and where it is to land, easy to crash that plane right on target, it is the same technology that guided missiles to targets during Desert storm in the early 1990s (And dates back to the advent of GPS in the late 1980s). This is an extremely accurate way to hit a target (provided you know where the target is, and in this case everyone does).

[ddeclue]

3. NASA has already been there and done that folks..nothing to see here..move along..

And it won't really be all that useful given that there are so many different crash scenarios and given the fact that they will almost certainly be using some antiquated piece of junk not flown by the major airlines in 30 years and it won't have anywhere near a useful sensor payload to provide any new "insight" into plane crashes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATKP5ouO_MQ