They are getting some amazing information out of these test, but I always have a little part of me die whenever I see a beautiful aircraft plow into the ground.
Its an airframe beyond service, over maximum hours or some other defect that banned it from service permanently. Nasa wouldnt smash a perfectly good plane. This is an honorable and safe end to this airframes service to human flight. There, feel better now? :)
I have always liked the aeronautical aspect of NASA and wish more people knew it existed. fascinating research into creating more efficient and safer aeronautical travel. The situation depicted in the video is borderline to me. The port side wing breaking off may or may not indicate that the crash involves too much impact force at the wrong angle to be considered survivable. It may just be that the crash test aircraft was a significantly fatigued specimen, that is not representative of average general aviation high wing tricycle geared aircraft.
Pramuka Perera, It was a good representation of some aircraft crashes. If you have ever seen the some of the wreckage of approach speed crashes of small general aviation high wing aircraft you will recognize the flip over onto the top of the aircraft. You also see it in tail drag or conventional mounted landing gear aircraft after some ground loops. It is usually better to "pancake" or belly crash land if you can. The seats do a better job of absorbing the impact and the crash forces are spread over a larger area of the fuselage.
My Question is the test flight dummy on the right didn't seem to be in his harness & my concern for the projectiles being thrust from the rear of the plane ?
Question: in both tests, you had one dummy with a lap belt only, and then one with some form of shoulder restraint. On the hard-surface test, you had a shoulder belt, which appeared to work well. In this one, it appeared to be a 4-point restraint, and appeared to fail. How was this 4-point restraint attached to the structure?
It is interesting to compare this test with the previous drop. Will there be future testing with a nose high or banked approach? The previous drop was a great argument for use of the shoulder strap. Thank you for the upload!
+NASA Langley Research Center Thank you! These are excellent videos. I realize the tests were related to ELTs, but I am curious if you collected injury data as well. The first video (level impact) looked the least destructive but I wonder if the vertical acceleration was greater on the occupants. I'm also curious as to the model of 172 used in the experiments. Sorry for all the questions but I am a recently fledged private pilot and fly a 172n. Thank you again for these great series of uploads, I will be sharing them with my flight club.
+efox2001 After research showed that make and model of aircraft had no bearing on the performance of the ELTs, the team chose Cessna 172s because they are the most popular aircraft of all time, so there were many available to purchase for testing. The engineers did collect injury data - in part so they could correlate it with the ELT performance and to make sure the crashes were survivable, since that is when ELTs are most crucial.
Safety belts for what, really?? (2:55) Has someone forgot to fix them or they "work" this decorative way? And they are supposed to be the fixed, not retractile, type.(3:56) Impressive!!
They let you accelerate and if they tear off, that uses up some of the energy which would kill you. At the same time they stop you falling out. I doubt the waist failed. Hitting slower is very good.
Does anyone know if results for these tests vary between tricycle and conventional gear? Is one arrangement safer than the other in these sort of landings?
+Scott Roth it will take a number of months for the team to analyze the data. Then it will make recommendations for ELT improvements. Will check on possible public release of data.
Peter Harris, Not all aircraft crashes are found to have the pilot's behavior to be the primary cause of the crash. Fraudulent parts, some bird strikes, lightning strikes, and other factors can be the primary cause of the crash.
What final judgement? The DC-10 that crashed at O'Hare was improperly serviced. The flight crew had no way of knowing this. A wing mounted engine rotated up and away from the aircraft disabling the slat control system. The aircraft lost significant lift on one wing at low altitude causing the aircraft to roll. Full opposite control movement by the flight crew could not stop the roll and subsequent loss of altitude that ended with impact into the ground. The DC-10 that suffered a failure on the number 2 engine which caused complete loss of hydraulic systems for flight controls. The flight crew had to try to control the aircraft using damaged throttle systems. Exactly what judgement was going to result in a reasonably survivable landing? Top airline crews were put in simulators and told to land safely with the same failures simulated. All failed to land safely. The only difference was in what estimated percentage of the passengers and crew died. Nobody ended up with anything below a 10% loss of persons on board. Mast bumping Bell UH-1s, weak tail structured V-Tail Bonanzas, whirl mode Lockheed Electra, and other aviation engineering problems created hidden dangers that killed pilots with good judgment.
It's a technique known as full-field photogrammetry. It's only necessary on the side of the vehicle facing the cameras. Here's a quote from a 2014 NASA news release -- "...cameras ... trained on the side of the helicopter where technicians have painted black polka dots over a white background -- a photographic technique called full field photogrammetry. "High-speed cameras filming at 500 images per second track each dot, so after the drop we can plot and see exactly how the fuselage buckled, bent, cracked or collapsed under crash loads," said test engineer Justin Littell." SOURCE: www.nasa.gov/larc/m14-034-helicopter-drop-test/
NASA Langley Research Center smarter everyday commented on another one of your videos about those dots. He said he'd love to talk about the data. I think a lot of people would like to see you guys talk :)
Anyone else slightly creeped out when that crash test dummy caught his broken seat belt buckle with his, erm... hand...? I know it's for science but both of those crash test dummies are way deep in the uncanny valley.
planespotter, They have been doing this type of impact testing for many decades at that same facility. It has led to scientifically based information that the FAA can use to create proposals for new aircraft safety requirements. It also has been used to demonstrate that some proposed safety systems will not do any good in increasing passenger or pilot safety.
Jason Burton I think is not likely to survive. This is a 100 ft free-fall, this means a vertical speed of +4800ft/min or 26.4 m/s. Aircrafts can sustain a FORWARD uniform deceleration of 9gs, that means around 12 feet for that speed. But again, this is a free-fall.
+Jason Burton Our engineers say according to the crash test dummy data one would have survived with severe injuries to the pelvic region. The other would not have. That is why it is important to have improved emergency locator transmitter - to get to the occupant who has a chance of surviving the quicker researchers can get there.
+NASA Langley Research Center Thats amazing! Nasa, what about the crashes conducted in the 80‘s, “Crash test of Four Identical High-wing Single-engine Airplane“. Are they also survivable? I assume so, since it‘s the same nominal velocity?
I'm not sure what this has to do with search and rescue. At any rate, I lift a glass to the suggestion of a NASA bumper sticker I saw in the Search and Rescue Ground Station at NASA Greenbelt. It read: Support Search & Rescue...*GET LOST.*
The are studying (among other things) the ability of an airplane's Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) to function correctly after a crash. That has everything to do with search and rescue.
Ivan Ivanov, Too much of an impact is useless as the occupants would die immediately. The goal is to test to create better ELTs for reasonably survivable crashes. If you take a car with GM's On-Star system and run it directly into a bridge support at 90 mph it does not matter if the On-Star system works. The occupants will die immediately at that speed. If you run it directly into a bridge support at 30 mph then the occupants might have survived, but be in need of quick medical intention, thus it matters if On-Star's crash notification system works.
Ivan Ivanov, I do not want the ELT beacon to have to do multiple tasks beyond what it needs to do to signal a crash. That increases costs. If we want crash survivable flight data recorders, cockpit vice recorders, and cockpit video recorders then that needs to be a separate project. An ELT designed for a 400 knot jetliner crash is going to be too expensive and too heavy for general aviation crashes. We want the ELT industry to upgrade the general aviation ELTs in a reasonable time frame and they need to be able to project a reasonable profit from doing so. Thus going for the low hanging easy to reach capability increases. The aircraft owners have to see this as a reasonable benefit to cost ratio before they agree to upgrade. Look at all the trouble we are having with the costly ADS-B upgrade.
They are getting some amazing information out of these test, but I always have a little part of me die whenever I see a beautiful aircraft plow into the ground.
Its an airframe beyond service, over maximum hours or some other defect that banned it from service permanently. Nasa wouldnt smash a perfectly good plane. This is an honorable and safe end to this airframes service to human flight. There, feel better now? :)
Robert Bardos I do :)
Such a wholesome comment feed
I'm betting there wasn't a soul there that wanted to smash this airplane into the ground. But this airplanes sacrifice was not in vain.
About what my first pattern work looked like
I have always liked the aeronautical aspect of NASA and wish more people knew it existed. fascinating research into creating more efficient and safer aeronautical travel.
The situation depicted in the video is borderline to me. The port side wing breaking off may or may not indicate that the crash involves too much impact force at the wrong angle to be considered survivable. It may just be that the crash test aircraft was a significantly fatigued specimen, that is not representative of average general aviation high wing tricycle geared aircraft.
David Hoffman You're right, a lot of people are interested in this side of NASA. I'd watch it on their channel if they played it regularly.
This brings back memories of when I worked with a support contractor that rigged the cables, starting with test #1 in February 1974.
Impressed with the main landing gear still intact.
Really informative footage this is, very educational! And it was only a 100 feet fall!
Pramuka Perera, It was a good representation of some aircraft crashes. If you have ever seen the some of the wreckage of approach speed crashes of small general aviation high wing aircraft you will recognize the flip over onto the top of the aircraft. You also see it in tail drag or conventional mounted landing gear aircraft after some ground loops. It is usually better to "pancake" or belly crash land if you can. The seats do a better job of absorbing the impact and the crash forces are spread over a larger area of the fuselage.
My Question is the test flight dummy on the right didn't seem to be in his harness & my concern for the projectiles being thrust from the rear of the plane ?
Question: in both tests, you had one dummy with a lap belt only, and then one with some form of shoulder restraint. On the hard-surface test, you had a shoulder belt, which appeared to work well. In this one, it appeared to be a 4-point restraint, and appeared to fail. How was this 4-point restraint attached to the structure?
I believe NASA did similar tests decades ago with Piper Navajos (Chieftains?), that may have been water damaged during floods.
This is exactly as my MSC thesis but with more funding
It is interesting to compare this test with the previous drop. Will there be future testing with a nose high or banked approach? The previous drop was a great argument for use of the shoulder strap. Thank you for the upload!
+efox2001 The last test on Aug. 26 was nose up, tail down: ruclips.net/video/aFi0pLpq2OQ/видео.html
+NASA Langley Research Center Thank you! These are excellent videos. I realize the tests were related to ELTs, but I am curious if you collected injury data as well. The first video (level impact) looked the least destructive but I wonder if the vertical acceleration was greater on the occupants. I'm also curious as to the model of 172 used in the experiments. Sorry for all the questions but I am a recently fledged private pilot and fly a 172n. Thank you again for these great series of uploads, I will be sharing them with my flight club.
+efox2001 After research showed that make and model of aircraft had no bearing on the performance of the ELTs, the team chose Cessna 172s because they are the most popular aircraft of all time, so there were many available to purchase for testing. The engineers did collect injury data - in part so they could correlate it with the ELT performance and to make sure the crashes were survivable, since that is when ELTs are most crucial.
+NASA Langley Research Center thank you. Is there a url for the injury data? I would be interested to know the results.
It honestly hurt a little inside to see that 172 go like that but i suppose its for a good cause. RIP bud. You'll be missed.
Safety belts for what, really?? (2:55) Has someone forgot to fix them or they "work" this decorative way? And they are supposed to be the fixed, not retractile, type.(3:56) Impressive!!
1:15 moment of impact.
Bit late on the round-out, Hoskins (with acknowledgement to "Flight International").
What was the velocity before contacting the dirt?
Safety belts seemed to do nothing. Not attached well?
They let you accelerate and if they tear off, that uses up some of the energy which would kill you.
At the same time they stop you falling out. I doubt the waist failed.
Hitting slower is very good.
I want this job.
Does anyone know if results for these tests vary between tricycle and conventional gear? Is one arrangement safer than the other in these sort of landings?
I think I am going to tighten up my shoulder belt a bit more on my next flight.
This was my first car driving test.
I wish these test would have been done years ago. Is there a way to get the results of how the ELT's performed?
+Scott Roth it will take a number of months for the team to analyze the data. Then it will make recommendations for ELT improvements. Will check on possible public release of data.
+NASA Langley Research Center
Thank You
it's a life changer to decide ..not to crash
Peter Harris, Not all aircraft crashes are found to have the pilot's behavior to be the primary cause of the crash. Fraudulent parts, some bird strikes, lightning strikes, and other factors can be the primary cause of the crash.
perhaps but it is up to the pilot to make the final judgment
What final judgement?
The DC-10 that crashed at O'Hare was improperly serviced. The flight crew had no way of knowing this. A wing mounted engine rotated up and away from the aircraft disabling the slat control system. The aircraft lost significant lift on one wing at low altitude causing the aircraft to roll. Full opposite control movement by the flight crew could not stop the roll and subsequent loss of altitude that ended with impact into the ground.
The DC-10 that suffered a failure on the number 2 engine which caused complete loss of hydraulic systems for flight controls. The flight crew had to try to control the aircraft using damaged throttle systems. Exactly what judgement was going to result in a reasonably survivable landing? Top airline crews were put in simulators and told to land safely with the same failures simulated. All failed to land safely. The only difference was in what estimated percentage of the passengers and crew died. Nobody ended up with anything below a 10% loss of persons on board.
Mast bumping Bell UH-1s, weak tail structured V-Tail Bonanzas, whirl mode Lockheed Electra, and other aviation engineering problems created hidden dangers that killed pilots with good judgment.
the front wheel hit first it not thought enough to handle the crash speed or the velocitity
then the engine hit the ground
and flip
...welcome to rc flying...
Testplane_spot.exe has successfully crashed
whats the purpose of those black dots on the body? and why only one side of the body?
It's a technique known as full-field photogrammetry. It's only necessary on the side of the vehicle facing the cameras. Here's a quote from a 2014 NASA news release -- "...cameras ... trained on the side of the helicopter where technicians have painted black polka dots over a white background -- a photographic technique called full field photogrammetry. "High-speed cameras filming at 500 images per second track each dot, so after the drop we can plot and see exactly how the fuselage buckled, bent, cracked or collapsed under crash loads," said test engineer Justin Littell." SOURCE: www.nasa.gov/larc/m14-034-helicopter-drop-test/
NASA Langley Research Center appreciate the explanation!
+NASA Langley Research Center do Mythbusters know about it. Adam vill get nerdgasm over it...
NASA Langley Research Center smarter everyday commented on another one of your videos about those dots. He said he'd love to talk about the data. I think a lot of people would like to see you guys talk :)
They lived, but with a broken back
Cessna 175, not a 172. I hope their other data is better.
Anyone else slightly creeped out when that crash test dummy caught his broken seat belt buckle with his, erm... hand...? I know it's for science but both of those crash test dummies are way deep in the uncanny valley.
what a crazy thing to do
planespotter, They have been doing this type of impact testing for many decades at that same facility. It has led to scientifically based information that the FAA can use to create proposals for new aircraft safety requirements. It also has been used to demonstrate that some proposed safety systems will not do any good in increasing passenger or pilot safety.
Slow motion at 3:50
I would like to know if the test dummies survived based on the g-force data, and what type of estimated injuries were sustained.
Jason Burton I think is not likely to survive. This is a 100 ft free-fall, this means a vertical speed of +4800ft/min or 26.4 m/s. Aircrafts can sustain a FORWARD uniform deceleration of 9gs, that means around 12 feet for that speed. But again, this is a free-fall.
+Jason Burton Our engineers say according to the crash test dummy data one would have survived with severe injuries to the pelvic region. The other would not have. That is why it is important to have improved emergency locator transmitter - to get to the occupant who has a chance of surviving the quicker researchers can get there.
+NASA Langley Research Center Thats amazing!
Nasa, what about the crashes conducted in the 80‘s, “Crash test of Four Identical High-wing Single-engine Airplane“. Are they also survivable? I assume so, since it‘s the same nominal velocity?
+NASA Langley Research Center Oops sorry for the typo - the word "researchers" should be rescuers.
NASA Langley Research Center injury criteria don’t predict death, but rather probability of injury.
Wouldn't the engine ruining cause more damage? ya know cuz it would dig into the ground and stuff?
The engine would be faulty in a case of a plane crashing most likely
I Remember When NASA experimented on 9/11 01 with airplanes
I'm not sure what this has to do with search and rescue. At any rate, I lift a glass to the suggestion of a NASA bumper sticker I saw in the Search and Rescue Ground Station at NASA Greenbelt. It read: Support Search & Rescue...*GET LOST.*
The are studying (among other things) the ability of an airplane's Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) to function correctly after a crash. That has everything to do with search and rescue.
my first landing in x-plane be like:
2:42 they all look like kids >_
mmm whatcha say
Did he died?
So this is where my tax money is going...
I know right all those "scientists" standing around on the clock in the control room. Lol. Thats alotta payroll
Robert Bardos do you want to be safe in aircraft? Each person has a specific job, and there are many organizations that participated in this test.
weak impact
Ivan Ivanov, Too much of an impact is useless as the occupants would die immediately. The goal is to test to create better ELTs for reasonably survivable crashes. If you take a car with GM's On-Star system and run it directly into a bridge support at 90 mph it does not matter if the On-Star system works. The occupants will die immediately at that speed. If you run it directly into a bridge support at 30 mph then the occupants might have survived, but be in need of quick medical intention, thus it matters if On-Star's crash notification system works.
David Hoffman
beacon must survive. it can report about impact acceleration. so you can reduce search party to reduce costs
Ivan Ivanov, I do not want the ELT beacon to have to do multiple tasks beyond what it needs to do to signal a crash. That increases costs. If we want crash survivable flight data recorders, cockpit vice recorders, and cockpit video recorders then that needs to be a separate project. An ELT designed for a 400 knot jetliner crash is going to be too expensive and too heavy for general aviation crashes. We want the ELT industry to upgrade the general aviation ELTs in a reasonable time frame and they need to be able to project a reasonable profit from doing so. Thus going for the low hanging easy to reach capability increases. The aircraft owners have to see this as a reasonable benefit to cost ratio before they agree to upgrade. Look at all the trouble we are having with the costly ADS-B upgrade.
แต่เรื่องจริงมันมีอะไรมากกว่านี้ไม่รู้นะ google เขาทำไว้ทำไมแต่มันใส่รายละเอียดนิดหน่อยมันใช้ได้