Total electrical failure - (hypothetical)

Quite a few he http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/wreckage.html

The one I recalled without googling for it was the flight attendant.
Doesn't she hold a Guinness world record?

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:27:59 -0600, "MJC" wrote:

I'd sure like to know who survived a free fall from 20,000 feet without a
parachute.
Really, I'm curious.

MJC

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Yes, and people have survived jumping out of the plane without a parachute
at 20,000 feet, too. But the odds are against it. Personally, I think the
way you deal with an electrical failure in IMC with no GPS or handheld
radio
is that you avoid putting yourself in a situation where that can happen.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
Quite a few he http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/wreckage.html


I was thinking more along the lines of these:

http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffallers.html

Well, that's not what I had in mind with the original description. All
of those instances have one thing in common; that the people who survived
were ALL still inside some part of the airplane.
What I was looking for was a "naked" fall (not inside a part of an
aircraft) of 20,000 without anything to hang onto.

MJC

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
Quite a few he http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/wreckage.html

The one I recalled without googling for it was the flight attendant.
Doesn't she hold a Guinness world record?

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:27:59 -0600, "MJC" wrote:

I'd sure like to know who survived a free fall from 20,000 feet without a
parachute.
Really, I'm curious.

MJC

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Yes, and people have survived jumping out of the plane without a
parachute
at 20,000 feet, too. But the odds are against it. Personally, I think
the
way you deal with an electrical failure in IMC with no GPS or handheld
radio
is that you avoid putting yourself in a situation where that can
happen.

"MJC" wrote in message
...
Well, that's not what I had in mind with the original description. All
of those instances have one thing in common; that the people who survived
were ALL still inside some part of the airplane.
What I was looking for was a "naked" fall (not inside a part of an
aircraft) of 20,000 without anything to hang onto.

MJC

So was I. However, that site lists some of those as "free fallers."

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:26:58 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"MJC" wrote in message
. ..
Well, that's not what I had in mind with the original description. All
of those instances have one thing in common; that the people who survived
were ALL still inside some part of the airplane.
What I was looking for was a "naked" fall (not inside a part of an
aircraft) of 20,000 without anything to hang onto.

MJC

So was I. However, that site lists some of those as "free fallers."

And as CJ pointed out, same site,
http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffallers.html has entries for two
falls from 20k and 22k, outside of the destroyed airframe, and
survived.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:26:58 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"MJC" wrote in message
.. .
Well, that's not what I had in mind with the original description.
All
of those instances have one thing in common; that the people who
survived
were ALL still inside some part of the airplane.
What I was looking for was a "naked" fall (not inside a part of an
aircraft) of 20,000 without anything to hang onto.

MJC

So was I. However, that site lists some of those as "free fallers."

And as CJ pointed out, same site,
http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffallers.html has entries for two
falls from 20k and 22k, outside of the destroyed airframe, and
survived.

Unfortunately, the site lacks any documentation for those claims. They
*might* be true, but all the site itself tells us is that someone somewhere
in the world says so on some unspecified basis.

--Gary

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:28:18 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:26:58 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"MJC" wrote in message
. ..
Well, that's not what I had in mind with the original description.
All
of those instances have one thing in common; that the people who
survived
were ALL still inside some part of the airplane.
What I was looking for was a "naked" fall (not inside a part of an
aircraft) of 20,000 without anything to hang onto.

MJC

So was I. However, that site lists some of those as "free fallers."

And as CJ pointed out, same site,
http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffallers.html has entries for two
falls from 20k and 22k, outside of the destroyed airframe, and
survived.

Unfortunately, the site lacks any documentation for those claims. They
*might* be true, but all the site itself tells us is that someone somewhere
in the world says so on some unspecified basis.

Um, googling Alan Magee brings up an article in the Free Republic
reprinting (reposting?) an article from the Albuquerque Journal which
references a 1981 Smithsonian Magazine as the original source of the
story.

Even a perfunctory googling of the 1st name on the link I gave (Lt.
I.M. Chisov) brings up the same link
(http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1071076/posts) and references
Hecht, Eugene. Physics: Calculus. 2nd ed. p. 85 as their source. The
209blah link is the third one Google brings up...

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:28:18 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
And as CJ pointed out, same site,
http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffallers.html has entries for two
falls from 20k and 22k, outside of the destroyed airframe, and
survived.

Unfortunately, the site lacks any documentation for those claims. They
*might* be true, but all the site itself tells us is that someone
somewhere
in the world says so on some unspecified basis.

Um, googling Alan Magee brings up an article in the Free Republic
reprinting (reposting?) an article from the Albuquerque Journal which
references a 1981 Smithsonian Magazine as the original source of the
story.

Even a perfunctory googling of the 1st name on the link I gave (Lt.
I.M. Chisov) brings up the same link
(http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1071076/posts) and references
Hecht, Eugene. Physics: Calculus. 2nd ed. p. 85 as their source. The
209blah link is the third one Google brings up...

I'd found the physics-text reference via Google, but that doesn't seem like
an authoritative source for a news story. The Smithsonian Magazine reference
looks more promising; thanks for the pointer.

--Gary