The safest place to sit on a plane

You’ve heard the comments that it doesn’t matter which seat you sit in on a plane in case of a crash, right? Well, conventional wisdom is apparently based on the assumption that if the plane crashes, it will get all explodified and you will, therefore, be all deadified. But rather than accept conventional wisdom, some smarties (people, not the candies) at Popular Mechanics looked at the hard data and figured where the safest seat in a plane is if there is a crash.

In the wake of nearly 200 passenger deaths in a Brazilian airliner accident, we take an exclusive look at 36 years’ worth of NTSB reports and seating charts. The best way to live through a disaster in the sky? Move to the back of the Airbus.

Well crap. The authors may be smarties, but they suck at telling jokes and stories – they give away the ending in the first paragraph. I guess that can’t be helped now. Let’s go on and see why that is.

The funny thing about all those expert opinions [that there is no safe seat in a crash]: They’re not really based on hard data about actual airline accidents. A look at real-world crash stats, however, suggests that the farther back you sit, the better your odds of survival. Passengers near the tail of a plane are about 40 percent more likely to survive a crash than those in the first few rows up front.

That’s the conclusion of an exclusive Popular Mechanics study that examined every commercial jet crash in the United States, since 1971, that had both fatalities and survivors. The raw data from these 20 accidents has been languishing for decades in National Transportation Safety Board files, waiting to be analyzed by anyone curious enough to look and willing to do the statistical drudgework.

Real numbers. Real analysis. Real work. They explain the survivor numbers and how they arrived at the conclusion. Good news for us cheapskates that always end up in the back because we bought the $27 ticket 39 weeks ago over when we heard we were going to travel.

[tags]The safest seat on the plane, Air travel, Safety, Popular Mechanics[/tags]

Judge gives probation to child molester based on his stature?

Ultimately, the judge’s decision was based on more than the molester’s 5 foot 1 inch height, but that’s the only criteria she apparently mentioned during sentencing.

A judge had valid reasons for sentencing a 5-foot-1 sex offender to probation, even though she cited the offender’s height as part of her rationale, the Nebraska Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

An examination by a clinical psychologist and the results of a test used to determine the risk that Richard W. Thompson would reoffend both indicated that Thompson, 52, is neither a pedophile nor a sexual predator, the court said.

I’m not an expert. My opinion means nothing. But based on a number of books I’ve read by people who seem to be experts in criminal behavior, recidivism, and sexual criminals’ rehabilitation prospects, I would guess that the test is probably inaccurate. The judges stated view in court didn’t mention the tests, though.

So I’m sitting here thinking this guy has earned his way to prison, but then I look at you and I look at your physical size. I look at your basic ability to cope with people and, quite frankly, I shake to think what might happen to you in prison because I don’t think you’ll do well in prison

When I was in high school, I had a history teacher who told us that even among criminals, child molesters are viewed badly. He said most child molesters and abusers had to be kept in solitary most of the time to protect them from rape, abuse, and possible death. To me, that sounds exactly like what this molester needs. Only without the protection of solitary. I don’t see why small stature should protect this low-life from that.

Oh, in case you can’t tell – I despise those who prey on children.

[tags]Child Molester given probation for small stature, Let the bastard rot in jail[/tags]