Well, actually, the back of the airplane. It's safer there.

I wonder if the statistics would show that you're better off in an exit row? Particularly in the window seat?

I've heard this before. As I dimly recall, there has long been debate over the safest part of the plane. The Popular Mechanics story indicates why. They count 20 plane crashes. Fair number, but still opportunity for error. To be honest, it's much like taking a study of 20 groups of four people, and determining that the person in slot A has a 2/3 greater chance of dying in a rare circumstance than the person in slot D. It wouldn't take much to get a different statistical distribution. My suspicion is that small sample sizes are indeed why there's so much disagreement in the first place.

And where would I want to be in a plane crash? Where the survivors are.

I wonder if the 727 rear exit "air stairs" skewed the results.

You can sit in the back of the plane, but the odds of one losing their hearing prematurely due to higher engine noise is greater than being involved in an aircraft accident and particularly of surviving an aircraft accident.

Speaking of statistics and flying, I'm constantly amused with my mother-in-law who is afraid of flying because the plane may crash, yet is not disturbed that her house lies underneath the approach to IAH.

And where would I want to be in a plane crash?

At the last airport where that plane landed safely.

I'm selfish that way.

The biggest issue with air travel is not how to survive a crash. You're far more likely being killed in your own car or smashing your skull in the bathtub. The problem with air travel is the highly uncomfortable, mean, cheap, impersonal and ultimately depressing experience it is, and that's irrespective of which seat you sit in.

I'm surprised they didn't mention the Dallas Delta Flight 191 crash. The great majority of the 29 people that survived were all in the tail section. I think 2 of them were over the wing but one of them survived for 10 years in a coma, if you call that living.

So... Forget First Class?

The problem with air travel is the highly uncomfortable, mean, cheap, impersonal and ultimately depressing experience it is, and that's irrespective of which seat you sit in.

And yet, this is what the customers voted for with their dollars. It is possible to upgrade, and there have been airlines that have attempted to offer higher quality service.

A little context would have helped.

So there were 20 crashes with both casualties and survivors. How many crashes with no survivors?

By the time you're in a large airliner in a 'crash' scenario, your odds aren't good.

49% vs 69% sounds like a significant difference, but if all the crashes are added, I'll bet the data would look more like "If you're in an airplane crash, you have a 1% chance of surviving in the front and a 1.5% chance of surviving in the back." Still a difference, but not nearly as pronounced.

Also, my mother-in-law doesn't like to fly, but insists she drive all the time. Guess the feeling of control is important.

What Tom says is the old "big hole in the ground" theory of airplane crashworthiness, as in, it doesn't matter, because you can't survive no matter what.

But I've heard plausible arguments that this is nonsense. Few accidents are a plane falling out of the sky from 30,000 feet, TWA 800 and friends notwithstanding. I've heard it's much more common to have an unusually bad landing, or an aborted takeoff, or bash another plane on the taxiway. In that case, it does matter what you do.

What I've also read and find somewhat convincing is that the most important factor in survival is just to have had a plan before the accident. Folks who survived are those who knew where the nearest exit was, and who went directly there as soon as they could, leaving luggage and iPod behind. Folks who only started to think about what they'd do in an emergency after the emergency started didn't fare very well.