Talk:Mid-air break-up

From Lostpedia

Interesting page, Renner. Seems you are quite the aviation expert around here, from all your edits. :) Thanks for adding research. --PandoraX 22:02, 5 November 2006 (PST)

Amazing work, this is what seperates lostpedia from normal fan sites ZEKE?(>

Indeed, well done. A truly excellent page. --Scottkj 20:15, 6 December 2006 (PST)

Contents 1 Calculations of size of first piece 2 Error in tail section 3 Altitude inconsistancies 4 Uruguay Flight 571 similarities 5 Historical examples of mid-air break ups 6 This video would be a perfect add-on for this page! 7 Producers confirm avionics failure 8 Cockpit & Fuselage Crashsite 9 Screencaps from Via Domus 10 Major overhaul

Calculations of size of first piece

• Oceanic 815
  • length fuselage = 225 px = 73.08m
  • length piece = 14.2px = est. 4.61m
  • height piece = 11.4px = est. 3.70m
  • ratio l/w = 1.25
• B-777 specs
  • length fuselage = 73.08m
  • length cargo door = 2.78m
  • height cargo door = 1.78m
  • ratio l/w = 1.56

Error in tail section

In "Other 48 days", the tail is shown falling from the upper left side of the screen. If the Others are in the North and the plane was coming from the North (appearently correct), the tail should have come from the right side. Or could it have gone into a curve on its way down?- Doctor JustPhil 07:13, 31 January 2007 (PST)

Altitude inconsistancies

Great work! Something that has been stuck in my craw since A Tale of Two Cities is that when viewed by the Others, the plane is well below the cloud level when it breaks up, but in Pilot, Part 1, you can clearly see clouds well below the plane, indicating a much higher altitude! Could the produces have flubbed this one up this badly by mistake? Pharmakon 08:07, 22 February 2007 (PST)

Uruguay Flight 571 similarities

Uruguay Flight 571 was the basis for the movie Alive. In this air accident, the plane hit mountain peaks and broke up prior to the crash. The tail section disappeared but was later found during a brave trek by a small group. The tail section held keys to the survival and rescue of the group, namely pipe insulation that was stripped and used to help a recon party live through the freezing nights in the Andes.

Historical examples of mid-air break ups

Does anyone else think that this is a little misleading?, Using that data to calculate the odds of surviving a mid air break up is so wrong I don't even know where to being! can we remove the odds? there suppost to be based on mathamatical certanty not a few scraps of info. I don't really have a problem with the rest of the facts, though they don't really cover a flight being ripped apart like 815 --Hit and miss 16:28, 16 April 2007 (PDT)

Can you begin somewhere? It seems fairly mathematically reasonable to me, in light especially of the fact that we have no better analogs for Oceanic 815. The odds highlight nicely the improbability of such an event as seen on the show. In fact, I might even divide the odds by the number of people who survived to further highlight the improbability of this event, if I was an author of this article. --Scottkj 17:36, 17 April 2007 (PDT)

Ok Concider this, I take A non-Bias coin and using the following methods run the following tests 10 each, and get the following results; Droping 7/10 H Tossing 6/10 H Catching 7/10 H overall 20/30 H Using this data I can there for say that the prob of it landing Heads is 2/3? No! Regardless of the data the chance of it landing Heads with a none biased coin is 1/2. My test have nothing todo with the results really (presuming I'm not pre-biased). The previous crashes have no connection to flight 815 crash as they are not the same type of mid-air break up. The condions effecting the plane are radicaly different. The odds given in the artical are Specific the the those planes in those conditions at those altitudes. This plane got split into 3 and fell, the only one of those flights that is similar is China Airlines Flight 611. Using the odds from that flight all the 815er should of died. --Hit and miss 11:07, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

But this isn't an analog to a statistically predictable system. If nobody had ever tossed a coin before your series of tests, and the properties of a coin toss were not otherwise known, it would be prefectly reasonable to say, by induction, that the likelyhood of tossing heads is 2/3. A mid-air break-up is absurdly complicated from a physical standpoint, and the only analog even close to modeling it is similar events in the past. The quality of the approximation is almost certainly very poor, but it is the only way of producing any numbers. The overriding point the authors are making here is that the likelyhood of surviving this type of a plane crash is tiny, based upon past evidence. --Scottkj 15:25, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

Ok as long as we agree that the odds are well off and don't really make any sense. I accept that his hard to get any really numbers but that does not mean we should just use what ever, The only numbers relevent to the 815 flight was "China Airlines Flight 611" and everyone died. Therefore the odds he gives are actualy quite good! however all this talk about the flight has made me realise that perhaps the reason people survived is similar to the hatchs destruction. Both had people surviving when they should of died and both had people taken from the destruction site and put in random places, just a thought--Hit and miss 16:47, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

Yes, it's a ways off from being likely. The odds, more properly, for 73 people surviving the crash as occurs on the show - using that analysis that the authors have here - would be (1/476)^73, or about 1 in 10^195, which is roughly the same odds as Hurley winning the lottery eighteen times in a row. --Scottkj 18:02, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

I don't know what is "very poor" or "misleading" about the calculations of odds of surviving a mid-air break-up, based upon the historical data. It's a silly exercise, certainly, since LOST is a fantasy. If someone with more formal training in statistics can put forward better numbers, that might be helpful. The overriding point, as Scottkj points out, that it's unlikely in the extreme to survive such accidents. Let alone uninjured! (And missing impalement when you land in a bamboo patch!) - the authors

This video would be a perfect add-on for this page!

I'm putting this video here first so everyone can decide whether or not it is sutible for the page.

It is an incredibly well edited video and i think it is 100% perfect for this page

Also if we need permission from the editor then i'll gladly try and get it for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ierynZLSLHk

--Magnet 09:47, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

I Watched the video and seems like a good Idea to show every perspective of prior to the crash and during. I think it should be put on the page. -Almighty Sal

I agree.  Liveweak  13:08, 2 May 2007 (PDT)

Producers confirm avionics failure

In the most recent Lost special, "The Answers," Damon and Carlton confirm that Desmond not pressing the button did indeed cause the crash, but not by pulling the plane apart. Rather, they claim the bulit-up electromagnetic energy from the island caused a sort of EMP that fried all the instrumentation on the plane. That still does not answer the question as to how an avionics failure could cause a break-up like the one we saw, but I think this is a very notable bit of information that still has not been added to any of the relevant pages, including this one, Oceanic Flight 815, and Electromagnetism. Since I'm new, I'll just be content in pointing this out and leaving the actual editing to the veterans.

Thanks! --Joshrholloway 20:08, 18 May 2007 (PDT)

The most that should be said is that the avionics of the aircraft failed. There is no remotely plausable theory as to how any amount of Avionics failure can cause the catistrophic structural failure of an aircraft especially in the way shown. There was no EMP however. Sayid was using radio equipment from the plane after the crash that would have been fried had there been an EMP. Such an EMP would have also fried the Looking Glass and any other facility within at least 5000 ft of the Swan. Dharmatel4 15:44, 20 May 2007 (PDT)

I didn't watch "Answers," but if the producers stated that an avionics failure somehow caused the mid-air break-up, we need to report that. Can someone watch this episode on the 23rd and specifically take note of how they phrase this? I agree with Dharmatel4 that a loss of electronics, per say, cannot cause a structural break-up, but if the producers claim that it did, then we need to parrot it, however unlikely. It wouldn't be the first time, anyway.

I definitely do not want to refer to the system failure as causing an EMP, as that is technically incorrect. By all accounts it looked like a near-steady-state field, and as Dharmatel4 stated, having an EMP at that point would mess up too many other toys nearby. --Scottkj 21:36, 20 May 2007 (PDT)

I found it on youtube and this is the quote: "That is the definitive answer as to why the plane crashed. The electromagnetic pluse shot out of the hatch, fried the instrumentation on the plane. the plane crashed."

If taken in its most minimal sense, it could explain why the plane "crashed" (i.e. ceased to fiy and fell toward the earth). I don't think it explains the mid-air breakup or a number of other things that happened. I would suggest taking it in its most minimal sense. Dharmatel4 13:35, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

I think the discharge disrupted the avionics, and that made the plane uncontrollable when it collided with the island's barrier causing the break-up. One must wonder though what caused the original disruption that made the plane turn around hours before. A conspiracy among the crew perhaps? I say this because the flight timeline stated by the pilot and cindy must be wrong because we know the time they took-off in Sydney and the time on the island at the moment of the crash. With the pilot's timeline added you can see the timezone they crashed in is west of Australia. Hugo815 20:18, 15 October 2007 (PDT)

With the confirmation that it was indeed Desmond who caused the crash, I would say we can remove the word "possible" from "possible simultaneous event". Any objections?--Nevermore 02:44, 5 March 2008 (PST)

Cockpit & Fuselage Crashsite

Does anyone else think that the two crashsites seen in the final breakup scene are the tail section (right) and one of the engines (left). If you watch closely the engine flies off leaving a big black trail in the middle, and the fuselage/cockpit falls to what would be the bottom left or bottom center of the final shot, but is not visible in it. This is supported by Ben's map in through the looking glass where you can see the relationship between the Barracks and the beach camp. Hugo815 20:18, 15 October 2007 (PDT)

Screencaps from Via Domus

Could anyone add screencaps of the crash from Via Domus? Both perspectives, preferably - Elliot from the inside and from the outside.--Nevermore 01:35, 3 March 2008 (PST)

Major overhaul

I just severely overhauled this article. In addition to the inclusion of Via Domus (in its own separate section - still in need of screencaps; anyone?), I vastly reorganized the description of the sequence of events. Parallel events on the island and on the plane are now listed that way. In addition, I also overhauled the introductory paragraph, which was a sheer mess. Anything about real-life mid-air breakups belongs in the "Historcial examples" section.

I still think there's too many individual sections for the mid-air breakup. For example, "partial recovery" seems to be solely based on how the plane appears to be travelling in "A Tale of Two Cities", which is not backed up with Kate's perspective in "Pilot, Part 2". Also, "General disintegration", "Nose and mid-section continued" and "Nose section and cargo compartment separated" (formerly "Nose section separated") sure could be summed up into one section, no?--Nevermore 03:53, 5 March 2008 (PST)

I think most of the "major overhaul" improved the article. I don't think we need to generalize the sequence of events any further. This would result in a "fuzzying-up" of an article that attempts to provide as detailed an analysis of the events as possible. One of the deletions was the graphic to the right. It is now currently orphaned, since it was built specifically for this article. Do other editors think that it adds enough value over the screenshot that it should be added back to the article? Rennerboy 09:43, 13 April 2008 (PDT)