Reclining your seat during a flight:

dangermows

Striker
They would avoid built up areas obviously. Why would they ditch in the sea where a rescue of those on board, who didn’t drown when the aircraft splits and sinks, would be so much more difficult?
Crashing on concrete is much safer.

As I said, read up on the Alaska flight. The pilots were praised for their decision to stay out over water.
 


SYB_DC

Winger
They would avoid built up areas obviously. Why would they ditch in the sea where a rescue of those on board, who didn’t drown when the aircraft splits and sinks, would be so much more difficult?
Read it. It states that's what the pilots did. Berk.
In the specific case of Alaska 261, there really aren't any areas along the coast where that happened that aren't built up, and there's no way the end state of that crash would be survivable in any event. They were praised for keeping the plane over water because they had an event that rendered the plane almost uncontrollable initially and then asked to stay over water. It's not like they headed out there completely of their own volition.

If you have sufficient directional control to point the plane out to sea, you almost always have sufficient directional control to land on a runway if you have sufficient fuel (or even altitude and airspeed) to get there. Alaska 261 is that rare failure mode where your horizontal control is fine but you have extremely little ability to control vertical speed. In other words, if you lose it, everyone on board is dead anyway.
 
It's got a recline feature for a reason.
Indeed it has. On a long, overnight flight where people want to sleep and all recline it is great. On a daytime flight from Amsterdam flight to Newcastle (1 hour at most) it is ridiculous.
I fly regularly and I can't remember anyone ever reclining a seat on a short haul.
Then you are very fortunate.
 
Last edited:

Malloy

Midfield
One of my times flying to Vegas the seat in front reclined, ultimately shortcoming my space so I reclined and the wife behind me started going nuts, not for herself but her daughter about 7. I refused to incline my seat and explained the one in front had his down and I had no space.

Little bitch kicked my seat for about 5 hours straight then must have fell asleep:lol:
 

dangermows

Striker
In the specific case of Alaska 261, there really aren't any areas along the coast where that happened that aren't built up, and there's no way the end state of that crash would be survivable in any event. They were praised for keeping the plane over water because they had an event that rendered the plane almost uncontrollable initially and then asked to stay over water. It's not like they headed out there completely of their own volition.

If you have sufficient directional control to point the plane out to sea, you almost always have sufficient directional control to land on a runway if you have sufficient fuel (or even altitude and airspeed) to get there. Alaska 261 is that rare failure mode where your horizontal control is fine but you have extremely little ability to control vertical speed. In other words, if you lose it, everyone on board is dead anyway.
Thanks mate. Knew they intentionally stayed out over water. The pilots were brave as owt.
Plenty of pilots who have completed emergency landings on land have been praised too.
And rightly so I say.
Indeed it has. On a long, overnight flight where people want to sleep and all recline it is great. On a daytime flight from Amsterdam flight to Newcastle (1 hour at most) it is ridiculous.
I don't even sit down when I do that flight marra.
 
Last edited:

dangermows

Striker
They didn’t “head out to water”, they were flying along the coast anyway with the intention to divert to LAX. As I say, nonsense as usual.
Fail. They requested to stay out over water when being cleared to head to land. No harm done though marra, you'll recover from this.
 

Top