What really happened to Chuck Noland's plane

[Mxsmanic]

After watching _Cast Away_ again, I'm still not clear on what supposedly
caused the crash of his FedEx plane. Not being a pilot, though, perhaps
I've missed clues in the film. Has anyone here been able to figure out
what went wrong? Or was it just a "Hollywood crash" suitable for the
plot but with no plausible basis in fact?

Some of the things I'm wondering:

1. The aircraft seems to be stuck in rough weather, but what kind of
rough weather would cause a sudden decompression?

2. Assuming the aircraft was at cruising altitude, how much rough
weather can there be? I know that cloudtops can go a lot higher, but
how hard can they be to avoid? The weather radar aboard shows
something, but I don't know how to interpret weather radar.

3. When the cabin decompresses, everyone puts on oxygen masks, but only
seconds later they don't seem to need them anymore. I calculate that
getting from 35,000 feet to 10-15,000 feet would require flying straight
down at almost the speed of sound in order to make the descent in the
time shown in the movie. I can see why there might be some structural
damage upon returning to level flight!

4. I see red lights in the cockpit that look like a sign of engine
trouble, but I don't know enough about that cockpit to say for sure.
Comments?

5. The pilots are talking a bit and communicating by radio, but one
can't make out what they are saying (although they are going through
checklists, which might be significant). Has anyone figured out what
they are doing?

6. What sort of turbofan continues to run after being partially
submerged in sal****er?

7. What sort of jet engine develops spooky flames inside the compressor
section and behind the bypass fan after being dunked in sal****er?

8. What happened to all the fuel on the jet? Why isn't it floating and
burning? It seems to be only slightly less buoyant than mercury in the
film, and apparently goes down with the ship.

9. How can a jet engine that is apparently the size of a small suburban
home explode without spraying shrapnel into the hapless crash survivor
floating in a raft only a few feet away?

FWIW, the IMDB already points out that the attitude indicator in the
aircraft actually shows a gentle climb at the moment that it is
supposedly diving towards the ocean.

I had a dream last night that I crashed aboard an Airbus 230 jet. (Never
heard of the 230? Neither had I, before having this dream, but it sure
was roomy.) The aircraft descended several times to within only two
metres of the ground (I remember looking out the giant picture windows
at the front of the cabin and seeing this), before it somehow
instantaneously gained altitude and then plunged directly into a field
that looked a lot like those little wooden houses in old versions of
Monopoly. Anyway, I woke up then, and found myself thinking about
technical anomalies in the above-named film.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Cub Driver]

>I had a dream last night that I crashed aboard an Airbus 230 jet. (Never
>heard of the 230? Neither had I, before having this dream, but it sure
>was roomy.) The aircraft descended several times to within only two
>metres of the ground (I remember looking out the giant picture windows
>at the front of the cabin and seeing this)

I don't think you were in an Airbus. I think you were in the passenger
version of the Northrop Flying Wing. See if I'm not right:

www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Roger Long]

It's crystal clear what happened. Hollywood script writer needed to get
good looking nice guy onto desert island. Do you expect anything else to be
remotely plausible?

There are exceptions. I've been in the marine business for 30 years,
designed ships and done flooding and strength calculations on them. I've
also participated in accident investigations. I watched the whole of
"Titanic" without seeing a single fact out of place. The director was
stunningly compulsive. He didn't do "Castaway" though.

--
Roger Long

[Ash Wyllie]

Mxsmanic opined

>After watching _Cast Away_ again, I'm still not clear on what supposedly
>caused the crash of his FedEx plane. Not being a pilot, though, perhaps
>I've missed clues in the film. Has anyone here been able to figure out
>what went wrong? Or was it just a "Hollywood crash" suitable for the
>plot but with no plausible basis in fact?

>Some of the things I'm wondering:

>1. The aircraft seems to be stuck in rough weather, but what kind of
>rough weather would cause a sudden decompression?

>2. Assuming the aircraft was at cruising altitude, how much rough
>weather can there be? I know that cloudtops can go a lot higher, but
>how hard can they be to avoid? The weather radar aboard shows
>something, but I don't know how to interpret weather radar.

>3. When the cabin decompresses, everyone puts on oxygen masks, but only
>seconds later they don't seem to need them anymore. I calculate that
>getting from 35,000 feet to 10-15,000 feet would require flying straight
>down at almost the speed of sound in order to make the descent in the
>time shown in the movie. I can see why there might be some structural
>damage upon returning to level flight!

>4. I see red lights in the cockpit that look like a sign of engine
>trouble, but I don't know enough about that cockpit to say for sure.
>Comments?

>5. The pilots are talking a bit and communicating by radio, but one
>can't make out what they are saying (although they are going through
>checklists, which might be significant). Has anyone figured out what
>they are doing?

>6. What sort of turbofan continues to run after being partially
>submerged in sal****er?

>7. What sort of jet engine develops spooky flames inside the compressor
>section and behind the bypass fan after being dunked in sal****er?

>8. What happened to all the fuel on the jet? Why isn't it floating and
>burning? It seems to be only slightly less buoyant than mercury in the
>film, and apparently goes down with the ship.

>9. How can a jet engine that is apparently the size of a small suburban
>home explode without spraying shrapnel into the hapless crash survivor
>floating in a raft only a few feet away?

>FWIW, the IMDB already points out that the attitude indicator in the
>aircraft actually shows a gentle climb at the moment that it is
>supposedly diving towards the ocean.

>I had a dream last night that I crashed aboard an Airbus 230 jet. (Never
>heard of the 230? Neither had I, before having this dream, but it sure
>was roomy.) The aircraft descended several times to within only two
>metres of the ground (I remember looking out the giant picture windows
>at the front of the cabin and seeing this), before it somehow
>instantaneously gained altitude and then plunged directly into a field
>that looked a lot like those little wooden houses in old versions of
>Monopoly. Anyway, I woke up then, and found myself thinking about
>technical anomalies in the above-named film.

Insert Hollywood into each answer space.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Chuck]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> I don't think you were in an Airbus. I think you were in the passenger
> version of the Northrop Flying Wing. See if I'm not right:
>
> www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm
>
>

Where is the cockpit in the flying wing?

[Ash Wyllie]

Chuck opined

>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>

>>
>> I don't think you were in an Airbus. I think you were in the passenger
>> version of the Northrop Flying Wing. See if I'm not right:
>>
>> www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm
>>
>>

>Where is the cockpit in the flying wing?


The wing, of course ;).


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Richard Russell]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:35:38 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>After watching _Cast Away_ again, I'm still not clear on what supposedly
>caused the crash of his FedEx plane. Not being a pilot, though, perhaps
>I've missed clues in the film. Has anyone here been able to figure out
>what went wrong? Or was it just a "Hollywood crash" suitable for the
>plot but with no plausible basis in fact?
>
>Some of the things I'm wondering:

>
>FWIW, the IMDB already points out that the attitude indicator in the
>aircraft actually shows a gentle climb at the moment that it is
>supposedly diving towards the ocean.
>

It's a movie, not a documentary! By the way, the attitude indicator
does not indicate a "climb", it indicates a nose-up attitude. Every
time I land I have a nose-up attitude while I decent gently to the
runway. The altimeter or vertical speed indicator would indicate a
climb.
Rich Russell

[C J Campbell]

The first thing you have to understand about Hollywood is that the laws of
physics in most movies come from an alternate universe. Bullets flash when
they strike metal (and sometimes even wood!). Laser beams are visible for
all to see. People can outrun shock waves that are traveling at the speed of
sound and reach tiny crevices that will shelter them from all the buses and
vehicles being swept along by the shock wave.

Hollywood applies a great deal of poetic license to just about everything in
order to move the plot along, make the story more interesting and exciting,
and increase the atmosphere that the director is trying to project. The
MAC-10 always fires more bullets than it can possibly hold, Steve McQueen's
car has an infinite number of hubcaps that can fly off of it, Indiana Jones
never loses his hat, etc. James Bond's invisible Aston Martin can magically
repair itself and for some reason the anti-skid mechanism that is standard
on this car does not work in the movie so that the car can go sliding all
over a frozen lake.

Nevertheless, the movies do attempt to maintain a kind of internal
consistency.

The movie begins with the unlikely separation of Noland from all the things
that he normally carries, including his Swiss Army Knife.

Chuck Noland's plane has diverted far to the south to avoid unusually severe
thunderstorms, but is caught in them anyway. The load begins to shift and
some of it punches through the fuselage wall, causing an explosive
decompression and damaging several control systems. The airplane descends
rapidly to 10,000 feet as the pilots fight for control of the aircraft. The
rapid descent, hail, and shrapnel from the damaged fuselage could all
explain the engine failures. This descent is compressed in time to prevent
the audience from becoming bored with the scene.

I can believe the load shifting and causing a decompression because I have
seen this happen to friends of mine. They lived, but were hospitalized for
six months.

Time compression is necessary in almost all Hollywood movies. It can happen
on a larger scale, as in "Braveheart," where William Wallace's campaigns are
compressed to a very short time, or on extremely small scales, such as the
descent of the Shuttle in "Space Cowboys." There is time expansion as well;
for example the approaching shock wave of an explosion is often shown in
slow motion.

Once Noland's aircraft ditches the pilots are fatally injured by the impact,
but Noland is unhurt and is not crushed by the rest of the cargo which
almost certainly would have come loose in such a crash. Noland struggles
with the survival kit and finally breaks free to the surface where he is
nearly immolated by flaming fuel and almost killed by the shrapnel from the
turbine engine which is still spooling down. Noland is 'lucky' in the same
sense that the bad guys always miss when shooting at the action hero.

Although Noland should be completely covered with burns from the interaction
of jet fuel with water, he is virtually unharmed when he is washed up on
shore of his island. The island is uninhabited, but just so happens to have
all the necessary ingredients for survival.

Although Noland is alone on the island for years, he does not go crazy or
commit suicide. The harsh truth is that virtually all survivors in his
situation will do both within a few months. Man truly cannot live alone.
However, there have been some notable exceptions, so we can allow that
Noland may be one of these extremely strong-willed individuals, deriving
enough needed companionship from the picture of his girlfriend and from
Wilson. Noland also survives, against all odds, several fatal mistakes,
including a severe injury on a coral reef.

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> The first thing you have to understand about Hollywood is that the
> laws of physics in most movies come from an alternate universe.
> Bullets flash when they strike metal (and sometimes even wood!).
> Laser beams are visible for all to see. People can outrun shock
> waves that are traveling at the speed of sound and reach tiny
> crevices that will shelter them from all the buses and vehicles
> being swept along by the shock wave.

And my two favorites: explosions five miles away are heard at the same
instant they are seen, and vessels in space make a "whoosh" sound as
they go by.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Mxsmanic]

Chuck writes:

> Where is the cockpit in the flying wing?

Cockpit?? Hmm ... so _that's_ why it flew so poorly! Those careless
engineers--always forgetting _something_!

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger Long writes:

> I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
> fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.

I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
peace if he screwed up on any of the details.

Of course, _Cast Away_ was made up, but I don't see any reason why a
made-up movie can't still be technically accurate, unless the whole plot
revolves around something implausible or impossible (but that isn't the
case here).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Richard Russell writes:

> It's a movie, not a documentary!

Granted, but I know a lot of people who were spooked into a fear of
flying after seeing that movie (I wasn't one of them, fortunately).

> By the way, the attitude indicator does not indicate a "climb",
> it indicates a nose-up attitude. Every time I land I have a
> nose-up attitude while I decent gently to the runway.

Still, you wouldn't expect to be able to see the surface of the ocean
right in front of your windshield if the nose were pointing up.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> The load begins to shift and some of it punches through
> the fuselage wall, causing an explosive decompression
> and damaging several control systems.

Is this plausible in real life?

Also, aren't most of the control systems along the bottom of the
fuselage, such that punching through the sides would not damage them?
(And if the cargo is punching through the _bottom_ of the aircraft, I'd
really be interested in knowing how that can happen.)

> The airplane descends rapidly to 10,000 feet as the pilots
> fight for control of the aircraft.

How fast can this happen in real life? I guessed 35,000 feet for the
initial altitude, 10,000 feet for the final altitude. That's 25,000
feet in the space of a few seconds (because they aren't wearing masks
for very long, as I recall). 24,000 feet is 4 nm, and if they do that
in, say, 15 seconds, that's 16 nm per minute, or over 900 kt (and thus
above the speed of sound). Or am I missing something?

> This descent is compressed in time to prevent the audience
> from becoming bored with the scene.

Hmm. Maybe.

> I can believe the load shifting and causing a decompression because I have
> seen this happen to friends of mine. They lived, but were hospitalized for
> six months.

I'm surprised the load could develop enough inertia to breach the
fuselage. Isn't everything packed in pretty tight, and tied down as
well?

> Although Noland is alone on the island for years, he does not go crazy or
> commit suicide.

He never has to trim his nails, either. Nothing to do with aviation,
but I couldn't prevent myself from noticing that in the movie.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan Luke writes:

> ... and vessels in space make a "whoosh" sound as
> they go by.

Sometimes they make a deep rumble.

The only movie I can think of with no real technical errors is _2001_.

I do recall that _Airport_, despite all the ridicule it has received
over the years, did not seem to have any glaring technical errors,
either. It was a good movie, too, although it has been spoofed so many
times that it's hard to watch it without smiling, and the movie is badly
dated, thanks to the extraordinary paranoia that has infested air travel
in the years since it was made.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Tom S.]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Long writes:
>
> > I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
> > fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.
>
> I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
> documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
> peace if he screwed up on any of the details.

Well, he'll have to live with these "goofs" -
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/goofs

[Tom S.]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell writes:
>
> > I can believe the load shifting and causing a decompression because I
have
> > seen this happen to friends of mine. They lived, but were hospitalized
for
> > six months.
>
> I'm surprised the load could develop enough inertia to breach the
> fuselage. Isn't everything packed in pretty tight, and tied down as
> well?

Towards the end of the movie, he is told that they speculated there was an
explosion in the cargo hold. (Recall that this came out shortly after the
oxygen cylinder explosed and caused the crash in the Everglades in
Florida -- ValuJet or some such carrier.

>
> > Although Noland is alone on the island for years, he does not go crazy
or
> > commit suicide.

Recall that he made the rope to hang himself, but "chickened out".

>
> He never has to trim his nails, either. Nothing to do with aviation,
> but I couldn't prevent myself from noticing that in the movie.

He'd likely break them with all the manual labor he had to do -- but his
teeth were just a white when he got back as if he'd just got back from the
dentist.

[David]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 06:55:59 in message
>, C J Campbell
> wrote:
>The first thing you have to understand about Hollywood is that the laws of
>physics in most movies come from an alternate universe. Bullets flash when
>they strike metal (and sometimes even wood!). Laser beams are visible for
>all to see. People can outrun shock waves that are traveling at the speed of
>sound and reach tiny crevices that will shelter them from all the buses and
>vehicles being swept along by the shock wave.

I think you will find that in an explosion from something like an atomic
bomb, at first the shock wave travels _much faster_ than the 'normal'
speed of sound because of the very high pressure behind it and the very
high temperatures. It certainly won't travel much slower as it sometimes
appears to in movies!
--
David E-Mail reply to >

[RAM]

Roger,

There was at least one glaring mistake in Titantic. The character Jack claimed
to be from Lake Wissota. That's a man made lake in Wisconsin that was created
more than 5 years AFTER the ship sank.

I also heard mention that in the movie there is a worship scene where they sing
a song including verses which weren't added until in the 30's.

>There are exceptions. I've been in the marine business for 30 years,
>designed ships and done flooding and strength calculations on them. I've
>also participated in accident investigations. I watched the whole of
>"Titanic" without seeing a single fact out of place. The director was
>stunningly compulsive. He didn't do "Castaway" though.
>
>--
>Roger Long
>
>

[David Brooks]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Roger Long writes:
> >
> > > I watched the whole of "Titanic" without seeing a single
> > > fact out of place. The director was stunningly compulsive.
> >
> > I've read that one reason for that was that the enormous wealth of
> > documentation on Titanic would make it impossible for him to live in
> > peace if he screwed up on any of the details.
>
> Well, he'll have to live with these "goofs" -
> http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/goofs

James Campbell's insistence on accuracy was taken as a challenge by the
compulsive mistake-watchers. As a result, it takes the number one spot on
http://www.moviemistakes.com/top.php. Although there are many continuity
mistakes listed, there are plenty of trivial anachronisms and the like.

-- David Brooks

[Mxsmanic]

RAM writes:

> There was at least one glaring mistake in Titantic. The character Jack claimed
> to be from Lake Wissota. That's a man made lake in Wisconsin that was created
> more than 5 years AFTER the ship sank.

That may glare at people living near the lake, but I rather doubt that
the rest of the world outside Wisconsin notices it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

David writes:

> ... at first the shock wave travels _much faster_ than the 'normal'
> speed of sound ...

All shock waves travel faster than sound ... that's why they are shock
waves.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Tom S.]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> RAM writes:
>
> > There was at least one glaring mistake in Titantic. The character Jack
claimed
> > to be from Lake Wissota. That's a man made lake in Wisconsin that was
created
> > more than 5 years AFTER the ship sank.
>
> That may glare at people living near the lake, but I rather doubt that
> the rest of the world outside Wisconsin notices it.
>
Most other people in the world don't care about Wisconsin, much less Lake
Wissota.

[Tom S.]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> David writes:
>
> > ... at first the shock wave travels _much faster_ than the 'normal'
> > speed of sound ...
>
> All shock waves travel faster than sound ... that's why they are shock
> waves.
>
I'm shocked...SHOCKED....

[Tom S.]

If anyone has the Director's Edition DVD, watch the "Notes" about the
survival training the screenwriter underwent to give that part authenticity.

It might be of interest to anyone who ever get forced down in hostile
terrain.

[Mxsmanic]

Tom S. writes:

> If anyone has the Director's Edition DVD, watch the "Notes" about the
> survival training the screenwriter underwent to give that part authenticity.
>
> It might be of interest to anyone who ever get forced down in hostile
> terrain.

Provided one is forced down with a solar-powered DVD player, that is.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Tom S.]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S. writes:
>
> > If anyone has the Director's Edition DVD, watch the "Notes" about the
> > survival training the screenwriter underwent to give that part
authenticity.
> >
> > It might be of interest to anyone who ever get forced down in hostile
> > terrain.
>
> Provided one is forced down with a solar-powered DVD player, that is.
>
Don't leave home without one...five years on an island can be VERY boring.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Tom S." wrote:
>
> Don't leave home without one...five years on an island can be VERY boring.

Five years playing the latest <your favorite group here> DVD isn't any better.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[Bob Fry]

Uhhh...it's just a movie, eh?

[Mxsmanic]

Tom S. writes:

> Don't leave home without one...five years on an island can be VERY boring.

It could be worse. You could be stuck on the island with only a
solar-powered DVD player and only two DVDs: _Madame Doubtfire_ and
_Battlefield Earth_.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Tom S.]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S. writes:
>
> > Don't leave home without one...five years on an island can be VERY
boring.
>
> It could be worse. You could be stuck on the island with only a
> solar-powered DVD player and only two DVDs: _Madame Doubtfire_ and
> _Battlefield Earth_.

That's why on any over water flight of any significant length, I always
bring my entire DVD collection along and leave the life vests at home.
Better to drown than die of boredom.