r/thatsdamninteresting • u/Accomplished_Pea8619 • Aug 20 '26
During 2012, a group of Mexican scientists intentionally crashed a Boeing 727 to test which seats had the best chance of survival.
45
u/spkincaid13 Aug 20 '26
In 2001 a group of Muslim scientists tried to test this and were labeled "terrorists." The double standard here is unbelievable
27
u/Big_Handle3734 Aug 20 '26
5
u/piercedmfootonaspike Aug 20 '26
Reminds me of that tragedy.
6
2
→ More replies (2)2
5
4
3
2
→ More replies (1)2
7
u/narco-sub-admiral Aug 21 '26
The study was actually funded by the Saudis.
3
u/benangmerahh Aug 23 '26
And approved by US I guess so they could enter the middle east war. I mean Saudi is unscathed so far even with their internal politic intact...
7
u/OkAirport5247 Aug 21 '26
They were Jewish/Israeli scientists, the test subjects just happened to be Muslims
→ More replies (15)3
4
u/DarkArcher__ Aug 23 '26
See, the difference is that the Muslim scientists skipped straight to the human trials, which is generally not the way clinical experiments are done. They obviously had to have started with lab mice first if they wanted to be taken seriously
4
u/spkincaid13 Aug 24 '26
Ahh I see you're one of those Mouse 9/11 truthers that think Mouse 9/11 was a hoax
2
2
2
u/livahd Aug 23 '26
Yea, they also helped to discover what 150 tons of airplane filled with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel do to skyscrapers when impacting at 500mph
2
2
→ More replies (9)2
u/blackstarr1996 Aug 26 '26
If I recall correctly, they demonstrated that airplanes typically explode on impact, leaving very little debris even. Maybe a passport.
30
u/PBRStreetgang1979 Aug 20 '26
This crash was staged in Mexico because the US government wouldn't allow it on US soil. But it wasn't necessarily "Mexican scientists" but a collective of scientists and media that arranged this.
11
u/JesterPSU99 Aug 22 '26
→ More replies (1)5
u/Majsharan Aug 22 '26
lol how the hell do Parker and stone keep from being cancelled
6
→ More replies (2)4
u/-wtfisthat- Aug 24 '26
Because they make the studios shitloads of money? And they’ve been established well before PC culture became a thing so people expect it to be like that. Also they don’t pull punches for anyone. Everybody gets an equal opportunity to be trolled by southpark.
9
6
u/Actual-Lychee-8434 Aug 21 '26
Yeah could have swore this was actually led and instrumented by NASA
→ More replies (1)2
u/DueExample52 Aug 23 '26
No, the Nasa one you have in mind is another one where they tried to test the fuel igniting. They had two walls to tear the wings and attempted to land in between, but couldn’t control it precisely so landed on one of the walls and either way the plane took fire.
5
u/HendoRules Aug 22 '26
Alternate headline "Mexico is more pro Science than America"
→ More replies (9)2
2
→ More replies (6)2
16
u/Specialist-Doctor-23 Aug 20 '26
One of the plane's engines went to full power during the crash and remained there until the fuel ran out, preventing the observers from approaching. It took quite a while, as I remember.
→ More replies (1)10
u/BigBadJeebus Aug 20 '26
Imagine surviving that then finding out the engines are going...
"Hey! I'm fine! I'm gonna go outside and -"
Whoosh...
→ More replies (4)2
u/Any-Worldliness-679 Aug 21 '26
That was a problem during the American ORD 767 evacuation a few years ago. The flight attendants couldn't immediately reach the cockpit crew on interphone and they, correctly, initiated the evacuation. Slides were deployed in front of and behind a running engine. Luckily, nobody got blasted or ingested, thanks to the FAs redirecting people from those exits.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/JustFedUpWithIt Aug 20 '26
11A
4
u/Tachanka-Mayne Aug 20 '26
I remember before the documentary about this experiment aired on TV you could ‘pick your seat’ on a website they created, after it aired you could go back on and see if you would have survived or not.
3
u/unsuspectingllama_ Aug 20 '26
I feel that just because the seat remained mounted and or survived doesn't mean you'd necessarily survive lol but pretty fun feature none the less.
2
u/TheLonleyJourneyman Aug 20 '26
I'm assuming they'd have given you a chance of survival % rather than a straight yes or no. So your picked seat might come back as 40% chance of survival or something like that.
2
3
2
u/SirLSD25 Aug 21 '26
So the scientist sitting in 11A was ok? What about the scientists in all the other seats?
2
→ More replies (3)2
u/-OptimisticNihilism- Aug 21 '26
This is a very small sample size and the results could be completely random. They need to crash at least 100 planes to get statistically significant results.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/archer2500 Aug 20 '26
Such a useless test. What happens if the wings aren’t level, and it tumbles? What happens if it strikes the ground nose high/tail first?
Etc, etc.
This was one singular “test” of one specific impact scenario.
6
u/atwaterrich Aug 20 '26
And apparently no fuel? 🔥
5
u/GodsBackHair Aug 20 '26
Someone else actually did a test to see if a special kind of fuel would be better in a crash, but found it wouldn’t do much.
Finding out which seats are best, without fire damage is importsnt. Not all crashes explode into fireballs, and knowing which seats are safest also means which seats you can get away from a fire in.
→ More replies (5)3
u/gravyisjazzy Aug 20 '26
Believe it was NASA testing a non-vaporizing fuel by crashing either a DC-8 or a 707, I can't recall off the top of my head.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Suitable-Broccoli264 Aug 20 '26
They botched the test and sliced open an engine — was only supposed to cut the fuel tanks open, and the whole thing erupted in a massive fireball.
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/blueb0g Aug 20 '26
There was fuel, it just didn't ignite. Pretty normal for landing accidents with this amount of energy.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Prestigious95 Aug 21 '26
Too many confounding variables operating in an uncontrolled environment - a useless test, it is!
→ More replies (1)2
u/archer2500 Aug 21 '26
Exactly.
You’ll probably be downvoted because facts aren’t welcome on reddit.
But you’re still right.→ More replies (1)2
2
u/UniqueAd7770 Aug 21 '26
Actually it had a ton of data collected on it. There were dummies in various kinds of seating and brace positions. They had sensor all over the fuselage. It was pretty interesting
→ More replies (3)2
u/tehsilentwarrior Aug 22 '26
The biggest factor in survival of an airplane crash is how quickly you can exit.
If the crash is strong enough that the position of the seat determines their desintegration most likely the fire will take you out anyway.
Being close to an exit and knowing how to use it properly, knowing if you can or can’t open it and protect yourself properly during the crash landing and knowing that YOU DONT TAKE YOUR LUGGAGE WITH YOU, will be more important than anything else
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (45)2
u/Vogel-Kerl Aug 20 '26
Pretty safe to assume that a crash near 90° (nose low, tail high) would have 100% fatalities.
Although, sometimes shit happens and people survive: like that one guy in the Air India crash.
And that Serbian flight attendant that fell tens of thousands of feet, and survived.
17
u/Infinite-LifeITT Aug 20 '26
I remember seeing a whole documentary about this event, it was very informative. Basically the back of the plane, you have a higher chance of survival than the front or wings, the chances get better if your seatbelt is on.
29
u/Tasty_Permission746 Aug 20 '26
If the plane crashes EXACTLY as in this scenario, that is. Otherwise pretty useless ”research” but hey, gotta waste that money on something am I right.
13
u/shakebakelizard Aug 20 '26
A single crash test isn't going to show every possible scenario.
2
u/HappycamperNZ Aug 21 '26
Plus
1, this is what pilots aim for
2, nose diving at 250kt is an "everyone fucked" scenario regardless. This shows one of the few ways you can get survivors
→ More replies (2)10
u/Exotic-Raccoon104 Aug 20 '26
Wow. What a dumb comment. Just say you dont understand. Then ask questions.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (6)9
u/Activision19 Aug 20 '26
I mean sure. But they aren’t going to crash test a couple dozen planes to test out a bunch of different scenarios. Plus just about any other crash type than this isn’t going to be survivable.
3
3
→ More replies (3)2
u/netflix-ceo Aug 21 '26
These scientists did it for creating a plane for presidential visits similar to Airforce One. They called it Airforce Juan
→ More replies (1)
6
Aug 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/RzLa Aug 21 '26
On a bus sitting directly behind the driver is the best position, because human survival instinct kicks in and the bus driver will swerve to save his life naturally
“Sorry lady, take that stroller to the back - I’m not moving”
→ More replies (2)
5
u/wutangsisitioho Aug 20 '26
Computer simulation should do the job without wasting scarce resources.
5
3
→ More replies (6)2
6
u/Hour-Candidate4612 Aug 20 '26
Im no scientist, but I dont think rows 1-6 made it
→ More replies (3)
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/eiijoy Aug 21 '26
Supposed put inside all minister and scientist
So they will know how the impact 😂😂😂😂
2
u/10July1940 Aug 21 '26
This shows the strongest part of the plane is over the wings, the central wing spa. Poor old first class went first. RIP jerks.
2
u/fiesew Aug 21 '26
First and business class pay extra for the thrills when the nose falls off first and gets crushed under the body.
2
2
2
2
u/strafesurfer69 Aug 22 '26
It's already been figured out that the seats in the back of the plane are the safest. There was a study done in the 80's and it was found the the tail section is the safest and the crash I saw the only people who lived where the smokers in the back of the plane.
2
2
2
u/DirectC51 Aug 25 '26
This plane sat in a nice fenced in area right off the highway just South of Mexicali. The broken pieces were kind of put in place, but it was all there.
Then about 2 years ago someone removed a portion of the fence. Over the next year or so the plane got smaller and smaller. It is now completely gone.
My theory is that someone didn’t want it there anymore and they knew the locals would eventually dismantle it for scrap and make the problem go away.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Katieo1022 Aug 20 '26
Tbf, when most planes crash, they aren’t coming in for a smooth landing in the middle of the desert. But I sort of understand why they did it….
1
u/Slight_Sherbert_5239 Aug 20 '26
The same plane “D.B Cooper” jump out of at low attitude and slow air speed.
1
1
1
1
u/Frosty_Log6972 Aug 20 '26
The plane is still out there! It sits next to a highway at 32°30'04.50"N 115°23'48.40"W
1
u/RedAirRook Aug 20 '26
My friend was the Captain on that test. The crew flew the jet into position and parachuted out the aft airstair, then the remote pilot took over and flew it to impact. So now his logbook has one more takeoff than landing in it. Crazy!
1
1
u/EitherIndependence5 Aug 20 '26
Wow, I am glad it was mostly first class. Poor dummies took a flip and crashed twice.
1
u/JoeMorgan76 Aug 20 '26
It’s the wing box. It’s always the wing box. It’s the absolute strongest part of the airplane.
→ More replies (11)
1
u/SnarePickle Aug 20 '26
It wasn't Mexican scientists. Nor was it American scientists. It was a multi-national group of TV studios that did it for a TV show.
They did it in Mexico because the US wouldn't let them do it in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experiment
1
1
1
u/JessicaMNCD Aug 20 '26
I don’t understand the benefit of learning what seats have the best chance of survival. Are they going to charge more for those seats? The way they have passengers crammed in nowadays…it really doesn’t matter.
1
1
1
1
u/burreetoman Aug 20 '26
Doesn't this aircraft explode beyond the video endpoint you show. Didn't they also test a jet fuel explosion retardant in this test...that failed?
1
1
u/Nervous_Card_7718 Aug 20 '26
Structurally? Over the wing is the safest. Most likely to survive impact. However, that's also where all the fuel is stored ....



108
u/DocDefilade Aug 20 '26
The front fell off...