- このトピックは空です。
- 投稿
On a long-dormant pad in Florida, a rocket that could challenge SpaceX’s dominance is poised to launch
[url=https://kra26s.cc]kraken tor[/url]On a Florida launchpad that has been dormant for almost two decades, a new, roughly 320-foot (98-meter) rocket — developed by Jeff Bezos’ company Blue Origin — is poised for its maiden flight.
The uncrewed launch vehicle, called New Glenn, will mark Blue Origin’s first attempt to send a rocket to orbit, a feat necessary if the company hopes to chip away at SpaceX’s long-held dominance in the industry.
New Glenn is set to lift off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station as early as next week.
https://kra26s.cc
kraken tor
The rocket, which stands about as tall as a 30-story building, consists of several parts: The first-stage rocket booster gives the initial thrust at liftoff. Atop the booster is an upper rocket stage that includes a cargo bay protected by a nose cone that will house experimental technology for this mission.And, in an attempt to replicate the success that SpaceX has found reusing rocket boosters over the past decade, Blue Origin will also aim to guide New Glenn’s first-stage rocket booster back to a safe landing on a seafaring platform — named Jacklyn for Bezos’ mother — minutes after takeoff.
Like SpaceX, Blue Origin will seek to recover, refurbish and reuse first-stage rocket boosters to drive down costs.
For this inaugural mission, a smooth flight is not guaranteed.
But the eventual success of New Glenn, named after storied NASA astronaut John Glenn, is instrumental to some of Blue Origin’s most ambitious goals.
The rocket could one day power national security launches, haul Amazon internet satellites to space and even help in the construction of a space station that Blue Origin is developing with commercial partners.
Price gouging laws are being ignored by landlords, says estate agent
published at 14:39
14:39
New
[url=https://kraken7jmgt7yhhe2c4iyilthnhcugfylcztsdhh7otrr6jgdw667pqd-onion.info]kraken onion[/url]
Jason Oppenheim shot from shoulders up, smiling and looking to right
Image source,Getty Images
Let’s bring you a bit more about reports of price gouging by landlords in Los Angeles, which we reported on earlier.Speaking a little earlier on BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Jason Oppenheim, a real estate agent in Los Angeles, says some landlords are breaking the law by raising rents more than 10% high than pre-disaster prices.
“We’re having landlords taking advantage of the situation,” says Oppenheim, who stars in the reality show Selling Sunset about LA’s luxury real estate market.
kraken7jmgt7yhhe2c4iyilthnhcugfylcztsdhh7otrr6jgdw667pqd onion
https://kraken7jmgt7yhhe2c4iyilthnhcugfylcztsdhh7otrr6jgdw667pqd.info
“There are thousands of people who are displaced…the hotels are overwhelmed,” he says.Oppenheim says he sent a client to a rental property which was listed for $13,000 (?11,000) a month. “(My client) offered $20,000 (?16,400) a month and he offered to pay six months upfront and the landlord said ‘no, I want $23,000 (?19,000) a month’,” he says.
“There are price gouging laws in California, they are just being ignored right now…it’s illegal to take advantage of a natural disaster.”
Share
Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
[url=https://kra26c.cc]кракен онион[/url]
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.
The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kra26 cc
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.
Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.
Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”
A year ago today, things went from bad to worse for Boeing
[url=https://kra26c.cc]кракен вход[/url]At 5 p.m. PT on January 5, 2024, Boeing seemed like a company on the upswing. It didn’t last. Minutes later, a near-tragedy set off a full year of problems.
As Alaska Airlines flight 1282 climbed to 16,000 feet in its departure from Portland, Oregon, a door plug blew out near the rear of the plane, leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage. Phones and clothing were ripped away from passengers and sent hurtling into the night sky. Oxygen masks dropped, and the rush of air twisted seats next to the hole toward the opening.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken магазин
Fortunately, those were among the few empty seats on the flight, and the crew got the plane on the ground without any serious injuries. The incident could have been far worse — even a fatal crash.Not much has gone right for Boeing ever since. The company has had one misstep after another, ranging from embarrassing to horrifying. And many of the problems are poised to extend into 2025 and perhaps beyond.
The problems were capped by another Boeing crash in South Korea that killed 179 people on December 29 in what was in the year’s worst aviation disaster. The cause of the crash of a 15-year old Boeing jet flown by Korean discount carrier Jeju Air is still under investigation, and it is quite possible that Boeing will not be found liable for anything that led to the tragedy.
But unlike the Jeju crash, most of the problems of the last 12 months have clearly been Boeing’s fault.And 2024 was the sixth straight year of serious problems for the once proud, now embattled company, starting with the 20-month grounding of its best selling plane, the 737 Max, following two fatal crashes in late 2018 and early 2019, which killed 346 people.
Still the outlook for 2024 right before the Alaska Air incident had been somewhat promising. The company had just achieved the best sales month in its history in December 2023, capping its strongest sales year since 2018.
It was believed to be on the verge of getting Federal Aviation Administration approval for two new models, the 737 Max 7 and Max 10, with airline customers eager to take delivery. Approvals and deliveries of its next generation widebody, the 777X, were believed to be close behind. Its production rate had been climbing and there were hopes that it could be on the verge of returning to profitability for the first time since 2018.
Scientists have identified an estimated 10% of all species on Earth. Here’s what they found in 2024
[url=https://kra26c.cc]kraken зеркало[/url]A toothy toadstool. A vegetarian piranha with a distinctive mark. And a pygmy pipehorse floating in the Indian Ocean shallows.
These wild wonders were among the hundreds of previously unknown species of animals, plants and fungi that scientists named and described for the first time in 2024, expanding our surprisingly limited knowledge of Earth’s diversity.
“Scientists estimate that we’ve identified only one-tenth of all species on Earth,” said Dr.
Shannon Bennett, chief of science at the California Academy of Sciences, in a statement.https://kra26c.cc
kraken тор браузер
“While it is critical to place protections on known threatened species, we must also allocate resources towards identifying unknown species that may be just as important to the functioning of an ecosystem,” Bennett said.Researchers connected to the institution described 138 new species in 2024, including 32 fish. One standout was a pygmy pipehorse named Cylix nkosi. The seahorse relative was originally found in 2021 in the cool temperate waters surrounding the North Island of New Zealand, but the species described this year was discovered in the subtropical waters off South Africa, expanding the known range of this group to the Indian Ocean
“South African reefs present notoriously difficult diving conditions with rough weather and intense, choppy waves — we knew we only had one dive to find it,” underwater photographer and marine biologist Richard Smith said in a statement.
“This species is also quite cryptic, about the size of a golf tee, but luckily we spotted a female camouflaged against some sponges about a mile offshore on the sandy ocean floor.”The researchers involved in describing the new species chose nkosi as its name. A reference to the local Zulu word for “chief,” the name reflects the species’ crown-like head shape and acknowledges South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal province where it was found.
The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
[url=https://kra26c.cc]кракен вход[/url]Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.
The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
кракен онион
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?
In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.
Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.
“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”
“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”
What’s on board this flight
Blue Origin had planned to launch a pair of Mars-bound satellites on behalf of NASA for the first flight of New Glenn.But delays with the rocket’s development prompted the space agency to change course, moving that flight to this spring at the earliest. So for this inaugural flight, Blue Origin opted to instead fly a “demonstrator” that will test technology needed for the company’s proposed Blue Ring spacecraft — which will aim to serve as a sort of in-space rideshare vehicle, dragging satellites deeper into space when needed.
[url=https://omgprice10.com]omg сайт[/url]
The demonstrator on this New Glenn flight will remain aboard the rocket for the entire six-hour flight, Blue Origin said, and it will validate “communications capabilities from orbit to ground” as well as “test its in-space telemetry, tracking and command hardware, and ground-based radiometric tracking.”The Blue Ring Pathfinder demonstrator is part of a deal Blue Origin inked with the US Department of Defense’s Defense Innovation Unit.
https://omgprice10.com
omg вход
Why Blue Origin wants to reuse rockets
Similar to SpaceX, Blue Origin is aiming to recover and refly its first-stage rocket boosters in a bid to make launches less expensive.“Reusability is integral to radically reducing cost-per-launch,” the company said in a recent news release, using the same oft-repeated sentiment that SpaceX has touted since it began landing rocket boosters in 2015.
Bezos, however, has acknowledged the importance of reusing rocket parts since he founded the company in 2000 — two years before Musk established SpaceX. And the company has already developed its suborbital New Shepard tourism rocket to be reusable.
“It’s not a copy cat game,” Henry said. “Blue Origin has been pursuing reusable vehicles since before reusable vehicles were cool. Now it’s much more of a mainstream idea (because of SpaceX). The difference is that it’s taken Blue Origin so much longer to get to orbit.”If successful, returning the New Glenn rocket booster for a safe landing will be a stunning feat. After expending most of its fuel to propel the rocket’s upper stage to space, the first-stage booster will need to make a clean separation. The booster must then maneuver with pinpoint guidance and reignite its engines with precision timing to avoid crashing into the ocean or the Jacklyn recovery platform.
Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
[url=https://kra26c.cc]kra26 cc[/url]
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.
The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken shop
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.
Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.
Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”
A year ago today, things went from bad to worse for Boeing
[url=https://kra26c.cc]kraken вход[/url]At 5 p.m. PT on January 5, 2024, Boeing seemed like a company on the upswing. It didn’t last. Minutes later, a near-tragedy set off a full year of problems.
As Alaska Airlines flight 1282 climbed to 16,000 feet in its departure from Portland, Oregon, a door plug blew out near the rear of the plane, leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage. Phones and clothing were ripped away from passengers and sent hurtling into the night sky. Oxygen masks dropped, and the rush of air twisted seats next to the hole toward the opening.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken тор браузер
Fortunately, those were among the few empty seats on the flight, and the crew got the plane on the ground without any serious injuries. The incident could have been far worse — even a fatal crash.Not much has gone right for Boeing ever since. The company has had one misstep after another, ranging from embarrassing to horrifying. And many of the problems are poised to extend into 2025 and perhaps beyond.
The problems were capped by another Boeing crash in South Korea that killed 179 people on December 29 in what was in the year’s worst aviation disaster. The cause of the crash of a 15-year old Boeing jet flown by Korean discount carrier Jeju Air is still under investigation, and it is quite possible that Boeing will not be found liable for anything that led to the tragedy.
But unlike the Jeju crash, most of the problems of the last 12 months have clearly been Boeing’s fault.And 2024 was the sixth straight year of serious problems for the once proud, now embattled company, starting with the 20-month grounding of its best selling plane, the 737 Max, following two fatal crashes in late 2018 and early 2019, which killed 346 people.
Still the outlook for 2024 right before the Alaska Air incident had been somewhat promising. The company had just achieved the best sales month in its history in December 2023, capping its strongest sales year since 2018.
It was believed to be on the verge of getting Federal Aviation Administration approval for two new models, the 737 Max 7 and Max 10, with airline customers eager to take delivery. Approvals and deliveries of its next generation widebody, the 777X, were believed to be close behind. Its production rate had been climbing and there were hopes that it could be on the verge of returning to profitability for the first time since 2018.
deneme bonusu veren siteler yeni [url=http://denemebonusuverensiteler25.com/#]yeni deneme bonusu veren siteler[/url] deneme bonusu veren yeni siteler
What’s on board this flight
Blue Origin had planned to launch a pair of Mars-bound satellites on behalf of NASA for the first flight of New Glenn.But delays with the rocket’s development prompted the space agency to change course, moving that flight to this spring at the earliest. So for this inaugural flight, Blue Origin opted to instead fly a “demonstrator” that will test technology needed for the company’s proposed Blue Ring spacecraft — which will aim to serve as a sort of in-space rideshare vehicle, dragging satellites deeper into space when needed.
[url=https://omgprice10.com]omg зайти[/url]
The demonstrator on this New Glenn flight will remain aboard the rocket for the entire six-hour flight, Blue Origin said, and it will validate “communications capabilities from orbit to ground” as well as “test its in-space telemetry, tracking and command hardware, and ground-based radiometric tracking.”The Blue Ring Pathfinder demonstrator is part of a deal Blue Origin inked with the US Department of Defense’s Defense Innovation Unit.
https://omgprice10.com
omg официальный сайт
Why Blue Origin wants to reuse rockets
Similar to SpaceX, Blue Origin is aiming to recover and refly its first-stage rocket boosters in a bid to make launches less expensive.“Reusability is integral to radically reducing cost-per-launch,” the company said in a recent news release, using the same oft-repeated sentiment that SpaceX has touted since it began landing rocket boosters in 2015.
Bezos, however, has acknowledged the importance of reusing rocket parts since he founded the company in 2000 — two years before Musk established SpaceX. And the company has already developed its suborbital New Shepard tourism rocket to be reusable.
“It’s not a copy cat game,” Henry said. “Blue Origin has been pursuing reusable vehicles since before reusable vehicles were cool. Now it’s much more of a mainstream idea (because of SpaceX). The difference is that it’s taken Blue Origin so much longer to get to orbit.”If successful, returning the New Glenn rocket booster for a safe landing will be a stunning feat. After expending most of its fuel to propel the rocket’s upper stage to space, the first-stage booster will need to make a clean separation. The booster must then maneuver with pinpoint guidance and reignite its engines with precision timing to avoid crashing into the ocean or the Jacklyn recovery platform.
Summary
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have had a fiery 90-minute debate in Philadelphia – their first of the 2024 US presidential election
[url=https://kra15-gl.com]kra1.gl[/url]
After shaking hands – it was the first time they had met – the pair debated policy before moving onto more personal attacksHarris said people leave Trump rallies early “out of exhaustion and boredom” – he said people don’t go to hers in the first place
кракен сайт
https://kra8.vip
Trump criticised Harris’s record on immigration and the border, and also her shifting policy positions – Harris blamed him for “Trump abortion bans” and for the 6 January attacks on the US CapitolSnap polls suggest Harris won the debate, but Trump says afterwards that she “lost very badly”
With the election taking place on 5 November, Harris is slightly ahead in national opinion polls – but polls are very tight in key battleground states
Shortly after the debate, Taylor Swift endorsed Harris on Instagram, calling her a ”gifted leader”
The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
[url=https://kra26c.cc]kraken сайт[/url]Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.
The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?
In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.
Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.
“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”
“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”
Scientists have identified an estimated 10% of all species on Earth. Here’s what they found in 2024
[url=https://kra26c.cc]kraken market[/url]A toothy toadstool. A vegetarian piranha with a distinctive mark. And a pygmy pipehorse floating in the Indian Ocean shallows.
These wild wonders were among the hundreds of previously unknown species of animals, plants and fungi that scientists named and described for the first time in 2024, expanding our surprisingly limited knowledge of Earth’s diversity.
“Scientists estimate that we’ve identified only one-tenth of all species on Earth,” said Dr.
Shannon Bennett, chief of science at the California Academy of Sciences, in a statement.https://kra26c.cc
kra26 cc
“While it is critical to place protections on known threatened species, we must also allocate resources towards identifying unknown species that may be just as important to the functioning of an ecosystem,” Bennett said.Researchers connected to the institution described 138 new species in 2024, including 32 fish. One standout was a pygmy pipehorse named Cylix nkosi. The seahorse relative was originally found in 2021 in the cool temperate waters surrounding the North Island of New Zealand, but the species described this year was discovered in the subtropical waters off South Africa, expanding the known range of this group to the Indian Ocean
“South African reefs present notoriously difficult diving conditions with rough weather and intense, choppy waves — we knew we only had one dive to find it,” underwater photographer and marine biologist Richard Smith said in a statement.
“This species is also quite cryptic, about the size of a golf tee, but luckily we spotted a female camouflaged against some sponges about a mile offshore on the sandy ocean floor.”The researchers involved in describing the new species chose nkosi as its name. A reference to the local Zulu word for “chief,” the name reflects the species’ crown-like head shape and acknowledges South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal province where it was found.
The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
[url=https://kra26c.cc]kraken market[/url]Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.
The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken market
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?
In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.
Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.
“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”
“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”
