Air Accident Investigator Breaks Down 12 Plane Crash Scenes in Movies

Following is a transcript of the video.

Steve Moss: My name is Steve Moss, and for 35 years I was a senior inspector of air accidents at the Air Accidents Investigation Branch at Farnborough. You've asked me to view various clips from movies and critique how realistic they are.

Final Destination (2000)
The major accidents that I've dealt with in those 35 years started with the fire on the runway at Manchester in 1985, then Lockerbie, Pan Am 103. I've never heard of electrical failures causing anything like that. Normally, electrical failures, if they happen, are likely to lead to gradual smoke. They don't really result in sort of explosions and fireballs and things like this. I've never heard of that. Never heard of that. Because they're protected. They have circuit breakers and fuses like you have in your car or a home. 

They would lose consciousness very quickly, within a few seconds. Authorities did say that it was likely, if they're free-falling out of the aircraft, that they would come to, but they would be so confused and tumbling that they wouldn't know what the hell was going on.

Rating: 3/10

World War Z (2013)
Firstly, the aircraft wreckage looks very realistic. I like that wiring looms are all hanging down. I like...that's the sort of thing you see, carpets, seats everywhere. Brad Pitt and the zombie are in different parts of the aircraft. Depending on the nature of the impact, you can have a greater chance of surviving, but sometimes it's the rear and sometimes it's the center, over the top of the wing, because that, on any aircraft, that is a very strong part of the structure. However, if there's a fire, you're also sitting right over the fuel tanks. 

I wouldn't say there's necessarily any great survival benefit being in an aisle seat. If you've got an intact aircraft and there's a fire develops, then it's nice to be on an aisle seat rather than sort of jammed up against the window. So, I don't think stats would, statistics would bear out that survivability is, in an accident, in an impact, is greater for aisle seats than for a window seat. 

Rating: 8/10

Non-stop (2014)
I've wrote here, "What is going on?"

I think it would simply punch a hole in the window, so you'd have a bullet-sized hole. What this thing appears to show is that the window disintegrates completely and takes a bit of the aircraft structure. Well, again, that really wouldn't happen because what's known as the window belt line, so the part of the fuselage that the window's mounting, is extra strong for that reason, because the holes that are cut out for the windows are an obvious weak point. So they make sure that the aircraft structure is beefed up in that area. 

They can run down. That's why if you see every time the flight attendants move a trolley and they stop, first thing they do is they put on the brakes with their foot so that it doesn't slide.

Rating: 4/10

Fight Club (1999)

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong. I think that could happen and that's likely the way that it would if it did happen, or if it does happen. The oxygen masks, yes, that's fair enough. They're designed to do that if you have a depressurization that was extremely rapid depressurization. People tend to think that it can happen with an impact. With a very heavy impact, vertical impact, sometimes they drop down, but their primary purpose is to drop down if the aircraft depressurizes at altitude. So, you know, all that's to the visual effect. It's known in the trade as the rubber jungle. 

Rating: 8/10

Die Hard 2 (1990)

Yes, well. Several things wrong with this clip. 

Bruce Willis seems to be able to reach inside the structure of the aircraft and pull a pipe out, which starts fuel gushing out. I don't think that would really be possible. Another misconception amongst filmmakers is that jet fuel is incredibly flammable. It's not, it's the reverse, it's much less flammable than petrol. From the start, I don't think that the flame going from his cigarette lighter along a trail and then up onto the aircraft would ever happen, certainly not in those low temperatures. 

There's something about Bruce Willis films, isn't there? Is it "Armageddon" where he goes up in a space shuttle to try... and that thing's bouncing off rocks, you know, and they're the most delicate thing in the world. You know, a fleck of paint could bring those down. 

Rating: 2/10

Flight (2012)

He says "the elevator" has gone stiff, as though it's a lift. Well, no, they're always referred to in the plural, elevators. They're the movable surfaces at the rear of the aircraft that are controlled by the pilots to make the aircraft go up or go down or pitch up and pitch down. 

In an emergency, you always dump fuel. No, afraid not. That's the last thing on your mind. You'd be trying to get the aircraft under control. Dumping fuel isn't going to help you. The reason that long-haul aircraft might dump fuel is when they've got lots of time to prepare for an emergency landing. In an emergency like this, where they're struggling to control the aircraft, dumping fuel wouldn't even enter into their heads. 

Rolling an airliner inverted and flying it inverted, I really don't think so. I'm not sure the structure would actually withstand. You'd break a wing or something because they're not meant to fly under negative G. 

He talks about hydraulic failure and then talks about going to manual. He then has this big handle that he pulls in select, and it gives him manual control. Most modern aircraft, it wouldn't be possible to fly them in manual, and bigger aircraft, you can't fly them manually. They're too heavy. 

Stephen: Seems to be relatively straightforward, what's known as a deadstick landing. In other words, no engine's operating. And it's probably nose high. So he'd make the landing like that to try and touch down, so the cockpit would be well clear of the ground. So, it's only if they ran into something, a solid object, you know, a building or something like that, that the cockpit would be compromised. But the scenario doesn't really hang together, so I'll give that a five. 

Rating: 5/10

Knowing (2009)

Of the clips I've seen, that, I think, is most realistic. I think that is what would happen. It's quite well done, the graphics. Now, if we look at the wreckage, the term we used to use was "disrupted." It's very badly broken up. As he runs in, he keeps coming across passengers, like this person on fire. I don't think anybody would've survived the impact. I notice an engine is still winding down. Yes, maybe, but I think the engine would be pretty much battered and jammed by the impact. 

Rating: 8/10

Sully (2016)

When you certify an engine design, a new engine design, they actually fire birds at it of a specified weight and speed and check that the engine doesn't break up. It's gonna get damaged, but what they don't want is for it to stop. [engines dying] Sully: Ignition start. Stephen: It sort of gives you the impression that the engines have failed completely. I don't think they did. I think they weren't delivering enough power for him to remain airborne, and I think there would have been a lot of... it all goes very quiet and very still. I think there would have been a lot of vibration. I mean, it is realistic and then it should be, because I think it's probably one of the most documented sequence of events of recent years, isn't it. 

One of the things that I didn't like about this film wasn't the technical side of it, it was the totally invented antipathy from the National Transportation Safety Board and Sully himself. In other words, they come across as bullying and accusative that he didn't do the right thing. That was a complete invention. I know, I believe Sullenberger himself said that that was not, that the NTSB actually supported him. 

He famously was in a film called "Cast Away," where there is an air crash. He, I think, is the only survivor. That was quite a bit unrealistic. You know, with engines continuing to run, and at one point he's in danger of being sucked into this engine that was still running even though it was in water. 

Rating: 9/10

The Aviator (2004)

Maybe there's documentary evidence that says that Howard Hughes did fly in shirtsleeves, without a seat belt, in what looks like a car seat with a headrest, in what appears to be quite a nice, sizable room. I mean, this is supposed to be a fighter, isn't it, a prototype fighter or a fighter bomber. They're incredibly compact. You see bits of the structure, there's pipes and wires everywhere. I really would very much doubt if the prototype of a new combat aircraft was as roomy and uncluttered as that. 

Now, if we look at the wing root here that's visible, you can see a dent in it. But in the other shots of it, it's pretty much intact apart from the bits it's lost. Not too sure about the landing gear running across the roof. 

Rating: 6/10

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I'm intrigued about what these devices are that they're fastening into the fuselage. I think the first time you tried to put any weight on this or to put any pull on it, those would pull out. There's not a lot holding them in the fuselage. They'd just give way. Assuming it's a real airborne sequence and not CGI. It must have been pre-prepared. So, yes, you can do a shot like this, but the aircraft's probably got strengthened rigging inside it, an invisible rigid ring. 

Rating: 6/10

Alive (1993)

The sound of the engines is all wrong. They have recorded a twin piston engine aircraft, which makes that sort of growling dive-bomber-type noise. This aircraft is a turboprop, which makes a sort of more like a whine 'cause it's got propellers. It makes, they all make the same sound, and that's not the case. 

This was quite well known at the time, a quite famous accident at the time, because some people survived for, I think it was 72 days, in those freezing conditions, and I'm afraid the macabre bit was that they actually had to resort to cannibalism to survive. But of course it was cannibalism of those who died in the accident. 

There's a warning light flashing that says "pull up." I'm pretty certain that that would not have been fitted to this aircraft at the period of 1972, was it? 1973? It's a system called Ground Proximity Warning System, and it was developed and mandated in 1974. I think they're getting it confused with what is known as a stall warning, because the pilot is heaving back on the stick to try and avoid the mountain. He would probably be in danger of stalling the aircraft. 

One of the first things to note is the whole sequence is lasting far too long. I timed it from first impact with the mountain where the tail came off until it came to rest, and it was a minute. Another very common movie misconception, because I guess they just want to stretch out the action a bit. You know, the real thing probably would have been over in a few seconds. And certainly this massive ski jump that the aircraft performs, and it lands, it's still intact, it's not even deformed. It would have been a massive, crushing blow. 

Rating: 6/10

Unbroken (2014)

I've written here, "Like this one." 

A water landing is a ditching. Lot of media get that wrong. They talk about, "The aircraft ditched on land." Ditching is purposely executed landing on water. It depends on the type of aircraft. The "Sully" film showed that it can be done with a modern airline. It's one of the very few cases with a modern airliner actually successfully ditching. It's not the worst thing that can happen. 

I happen to know that the B-24 Liberator was a difficult aircraft to ditch. It had a habit of breaking into two. The poor old pilots were the least likely I think to get out. I don't think the gunners would stay in their turrets if they know they're going to ditch. They would take up a position probably somewhere around the middle of the aircraft. 

Rating: 9/10

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7o8HSoqWeq6Oeu7S1w56pZ5ufonyitdFmmJybmZmyr8CMoqWvnaOptqit06ipZpqimq6sv4ydprCmXaW5orrEZpqrmaOdsrR5yKdkpqemnrK0