Statistics could save your life!
Posted on: February 5, 2012
On December 20th 1995, American Airlines Flight 965 taking off from Miami, Florida crashed en route to Cali, Columbia just short of its destination into the Andes. Of 163 passengers and crew onboard, 4 survived the impact. Mercedes Johnson was one of the survivors on that day, sitting over the wing and near an exit, she believes where she sat played a part in how she survived, the wing area of the plane is the most reinforced with metal. But is there a safest place to sit on a plane, statistics wise?
A study carried out by Greenwich University and commissioned by the Civil Aviation Authority analysed 105 accidents and drew conclusions that where you sit can play a role in the outcome of a crash. Those in aisle seats, sitting 5 or less rows from an exit and those near the front of the plane had higher chances of survival. Statistically they found the worse places to sit are seats at the back of the aircraft and seats six or more rows from an exit. Proximity to an exit seems to be the most important factor in improving survival chances, the closer the better. However counter to this Popular Mechanics magazine in 2007 looked at all available seat survival data from crashes dating from 1971 onwards and found that those seated behind the wing, towards the rear had a higher survival chance at 69%, compared to over the wing at 56% and even less if you were seated at the front at 49%.
Adopting the brace position, keeping your upper torso as low as possible, to avoid a jack-knife effect on impact and tightening your seatbelt as much as possible to reduce the potential G-force on collision are all points to note.
A positive attitude in a survival situation can have a big impact too. It can reverse the toll of stress and allow you to make more clearly thought out decisions. Something known as “negative panic”, whereby an individual doesn’t act when at risk has been found to occur in a situation such as a plane crash. When the mind encounters an entirely new scenario in this case a plane crash it tries to connect this with past related information. If there is no such previous experience then the mind enters into a cycle of passivity hence the lack of action and inability to come to terms with what is happening.
On a final note it is still important to remember that over 90% of plane crashes have survivors and it’s not all down to fate, there are many things you can do to improve your chances!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52788006/Artemis-Q1-2011-Is-Volatility-Broken
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5402342.stm
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/survival-psychology1.htm
11 Responses to "Statistics could save your life!"
February 7, 2012 at 2:36 pm
I like the way you used statistics in a real world situation, statistics is a great tool to find out anything in the physical world e.g crashes, sports statistics, medical effectiveness and so on. But i do not believe statistics is very accurate in terms of Psychology, i believe that stats can point things in the right direction but never give a real answer. Things can be said, that it has a 95% confidence level (so there can be only 5 % error), but what does that really mean ? that a group of people were tested, but what about another group or a group in a different kind of society with different ways of thinking e.g. norms, values and a general different view of right and wrong. I believe that the human mind is so different when being compared to another person that has accumulated hundreds of thousands of different mini experiences and stimuli, making individual differences in every single human being. Universal laws can not be applied to humans e.g. a bad and damaging childhood will create a unhappy person, the real answer could be, maybe but its never a YES ! which brings be back to statistics on the human brain (its never a YES or NO) its a hmmmmm maybe, could be, that might be why ??? i do not believe that stats is a good enough tool to study the mind. I think we need to be able to use more methods and include technology to go inside the brain, this would be a good start but again how do you really view the mind, what is the mind (its not the lumpy bit of flesh inside the skull) guess im not qualified to say or have the knowledge to understand it all.
[…] https://emcg1.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/statistics-could-save-your-life/#comments Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Published: February 7, 2012 Filed Under: Uncategorized […]
February 7, 2012 at 9:29 pm
I very much like this blog, especially as its a topic of statistics in the real world. We must, however, remember that statistics doesn’t govern our conscious lives. I agree with @psuc41 that relying on such information would allow us to lead a very narrow life, and the issues of anxiety for some people would be blown beyond all concepts of viable proportion. Just because something has a statistical chance of happening, doesn’t mean it will. And if the calculations for such statistics as the plane-crash-best-place-to-sit-for-survival example were calculated from previous crashes, the probability of the next crash is entirely different to the previous ones. For example, the nature of the crash (fire, lightening, electrical fault etc.), the type of person (healthy, unhealthy, physically able etc.), the place of crash (on land, mid-flight, over the sea etc.) and I could go on. The statistics for such information is taken from an average of the previous events, and they are all independently dependent on so many factors. In other words, each crash (if we’re still using this example) is completely different to the other.
There are, however, more reliable statistics, such as those for the lottery. We know the probabilities of winning, because we can accurately calculate the chances based on the numbers. For example, the probability of winning the jackpot is 1 in 13,983,816, and the probability of winning a tenner is 1 in 56. These are therefore definitely more accurate than such statistics as plane safety, but they are still flawed. Just because there is a 1 in 13,983,816 chance, doesn’t mean it will take 13,983,816 goes at playing the lottery to win the jackpot. That is the mean, and you could be bloody lucky and win on your first go.
The same idea applies to scientific research. When we conclude a study is significant, what we’re really saying is that I’m only 95% confident (if a 0.05 confidence level is used) that what I am concluding is correct. In other words, if I conduct this study 20 times, once the result could well be different from the others. Therefore, I could conduct the study at one point in time and conclude a significant result, but conduct it again concluding there isn’t a significance. I shall steer away from false positives and false negatives, but you see my point that statistics is not a specific science; there are deviations from the outlined probabilities.
February 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm
I agree with some of the above comments that the likelihood of dying in a plane crash may be determined more by the way you crash and therefore it is just lucky that you are sitting in a seat with less chance of dying. However, I feel like it is wrong to totally dismiss the point you are trying to make because of one exmaple. I think statistics could save your life or definitly improve it.
For example, this table (1. link below – Proportion of reported road casualties by road user type and severity: GB 2010) shows that the most likely cause of death or injury in a road vehicle is in a car. Closely followed by pedestrian and motorcyclke deaths and injuries. The table also shows that considerably less people die when using the bus or cycling. Just by analysing this table you can see from previous evidence which are the safer modes of transport and which transport is less safe.
Another interesting topic is bike helmets for cyclists, this article (2.) explains how the safety value of bicycle helmets is overexaggerated in some ways. For example, some studies which were conducted to show how safe bicycle helmets were didn’t include information concerning cyclists who have had collisions with cars. The writer then goes on to say that if you look at the stats you can see that just plonking a piece of styrofoam on your head isn’t enough (especially in road collisions), bicycle safety includes other factors such as learning to ride safely.
Overall, I think that stats are there to guide you and let you know information on certain topics. And this information, such as, learning how to ride your bike safely rather than relying on a helmet probably improves the chances of you being involved in an accident. Therefore I think these examples show how stats could save your life.
2. http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
February 9, 2012 at 6:58 pm
As a qualified pilot myself I felt obliged to jump into this, one of the earliest lectures I remember having at ground school was regarding crash landings and the statistical elements of a passenger jet.
Most passenger aircraft have the same basic structure, two large fuel hulls, One in either wing and two small fuel hulls, one in each rear fin. When in an emergency the pilot will have one thought on his mind. Land the plane. Therefore emphasis is on contact between the rear gear and the ground. When in an Mayday, the pilot will send all fuel from the emergency fin supply to the wings to reduce the possibility of combustion in the event of a turbulent contact with the ground. Statistically speaking and general common sense therefore will tell you that survival rates are stronger to the rear, closest the gear, roughly about row 4 – 5 from the back. In a take-off, statistically the opposite is true, as most thrust is putting emphasis on the rear of the craft, in the event of a blow-out sitting to the front is safer.
Ideally what you want to do is, at take off, be seated at the front, mid-flight be seated anywhere and at landing to the rear!
With respect to psychology, and decision making under stress certainly keeping a cool head is vital, take Captain Chesley Sullenberger as a perfect example. He landed the AA flight into the Hudson river. He was awarded for his amazing job a decision making under the stressful event, he is an example of a pilot who was no stranger to those circumstances, as he flew as a fighter pilot in his early days so as you mentioned he had a point of reference in his mind as to how to cope with this event.
In essence, statistically speaking survival rates can be calculated, but the reality of it is just unlikely, taking the air plane concept for example, even though all the statistics say sit in this seat etc, it is down to the pilot on the day to determine your fate, for instance if he misses one step on his check-list for an emergency landing it completely alters the outcomes which have been studied in that University as they were studied via approval of the CAA whom will only withdraw flight information from flights that met CAA standards in emergencies.
February 10, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Hey, i enjoyed this blog, it was both reassuring and unnerving as my parent live abroad so i fly pretty often. I’m not sure how well statistics can be applied to something as ambiguous as a plane crash. Each plane crash that happens occurs from different reasons and each crash landing site is slightly different in terrain. While your position within the plan may have a small percentage difference, i think each plane crash is different enough for these statistics to be largely inconsequential. According to http://planecrashinfo.com your chances of being in an airline flight that results in at least one fatality are 1 in 5.4 million. It’s a very interesting subject, and a refreshing blog topic to read!
February 10, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Statistics are used very cleverly in the media, for example the article which you focus on and loads of other things which try and win our opinion over. This example is completely dependant as an above comment states, on the type of air crash. The same can be said for wearing a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt saves on average 2200 lives a year but whether or not this saves lives depends on the type of crash. For example if one crashed into water- to not wear a seatbelt may save their life, similar to if the car went on fire, a quicker escape would be made without the obstruction of a seat belt.
There are so many other ways that the media portrays that statistics could save our lifes but there is always negative consequences. We are all told fats, salts, units of alcohol, exercise and all sorts are good for our well being, but a little too much can cost our health and lives.
To summarise take statistics in the media as a pinch of salt!
emcg1 
February 5, 2012 at 11:03 pm
I realise that you do have evidence to support the idea that where you sit on a aeroplane will predict the outcome of which people sitting in particular seats were more likely to be killed if the plane was to crash, but wouldn’t it depend on the type of crash it was? Surely different types of plane crashes would result in different people being killed, despite of their seating. For example, a plane crashing into the ground would have a different impact from a plane crashing into the sea, a mountain or even a building like that of the 9/11 disaster. Can the Greenwich University study be generalised to the whole population, i.e can the results of 105 aeroplane crashes be applicable to every plane that is likely to crash in the future? I personally don’t think it is. I believe that if this was true and if the study was taken seriously, then seats that were likely to survive on an aeroplane would be much more costly than those that weren’t likely to survive if an accident was to occur. And if there were a higher chance of survival in particular seats, surely no one would be willing to travel if seated on the ones with a lower chance of survival.
Relying on statistics to save your life would mean that people would lead a very narrow life, and be much more hesitant from doing things. For example, a male may hesitate to venture out of their house because of the fear of being struck by lightning after reading that 5 people are killed by lightning each year (10,000,000/1), men being four times more likely than women.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/05/30/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-115875-17495916/
Most statistics that are in the media are made up in order to popularise and make money, and your survival in life should not revolve around statistics, it is completely bonkers and would lead to problems such as depression, anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorders.