Its an airframe beyond service, over maximum hours or some other defect that banned it from service permanently. Nasa wouldnt smash a perfectly good plane. This is an honorable and safe end to this airframes service to human flight. There, feel better now? :)

Robert Bardos I do :)

Such a wholesome comment feed

I'm betting there wasn't a soul there that wanted to smash this airplane into the ground. But this airplanes sacrifice was not in vain.

David Hoffman You're right, a lot of people are interested in this side of NASA. I'd watch it on their channel if they played it regularly.

+efox2001 The last test on Aug. 26 was nose up, tail down: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l6yZY9N91deWf4U.html

+NASA Langley Research Center Thank you! These are excellent videos. I realize the tests were related to ELTs, but I am curious if you collected injury data as well. The first video (level impact) looked the least destructive but I wonder if the vertical acceleration was greater on the occupants. I'm also curious as to the model of 172 used in the experiments. Sorry for all the questions but I am a recently fledged private pilot and fly a 172n. Thank you again for these great series of uploads, I will be sharing them with my flight club.

+efox2001 After research showed that make and model of aircraft had no bearing on the performance of the ELTs, the team chose Cessna 172s because they are the most popular aircraft of all time, so there were many available to purchase for testing. The engineers did collect injury data - in part so they could correlate it with the ELT performance and to make sure the crashes were survivable, since that is when ELTs are most crucial.

+NASA Langley Research Center thank you. Is there a url for the injury data? I would be interested to know the results.

planespotter, They have been doing this type of impact testing for many decades at that same facility. It has led to scientifically based information that the FAA can use to create proposals for new aircraft safety requirements. It also has been used to demonstrate that some proposed safety systems will not do any good in increasing passenger or pilot safety.

They let you accelerate and if they tear off, that uses up some of the energy which would kill you. At the same time they stop you falling out. I doubt the waist failed. Hitting slower is very good.

+Scott Roth it will take a number of months for the team to analyze the data. Then it will make recommendations for ELT improvements. Will check on possible public release of data.

+NASA Langley Research Center Thank You

Peter Harris, Not all aircraft crashes are found to have the pilot's behavior to be the primary cause of the crash. Fraudulent parts, some bird strikes, lightning strikes, and other factors can be the primary cause of the crash.

perhaps but it is up to the pilot to make the final judgment

What final judgement? The DC-10 that crashed at O'Hare was improperly serviced. The flight crew had no way of knowing this. A wing mounted engine rotated up and away from the aircraft disabling the slat control system. The aircraft lost significant lift on one wing at low altitude causing the aircraft to roll. Full opposite control movement by the flight crew could not stop the roll and subsequent loss of altitude that ended with impact into the ground. The DC-10 that suffered a failure on the number 2 engine which caused complete loss of hydraulic systems for flight controls. The flight crew had to try to control the aircraft using damaged throttle systems. Exactly what judgement was going to result in a reasonably survivable landing? Top airline crews were put in simulators and told to land safely with the same failures simulated. All failed to land safely. The only difference was in what estimated percentage of the passengers and crew died. Nobody ended up with anything below a 10% loss of persons on board. Mast bumping Bell UH-1s, weak tail structured V-Tail Bonanzas, whirl mode Lockheed Electra, and other aviation engineering problems created hidden dangers that killed pilots with good judgment.

then the engine hit the ground

and flip

The are studying (among other things) the ability of an airplane's Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) to function correctly after a crash. That has everything to do with search and rescue.

It's a technique known as full-field photogrammetry. It's only necessary on the side of the vehicle facing the cameras. Here's a quote from a 2014 NASA news release -- "...cameras ... trained on the side of the helicopter where technicians have painted black polka dots over a white background -- a photographic technique called full field photogrammetry. "High-speed cameras filming at 500 images per second track each dot, so after the drop we can plot and see exactly how the fuselage buckled, bent, cracked or collapsed under crash loads," said test engineer Justin Littell." SOURCE: www.nasa.gov/larc/m14-034-helicopter-drop-test/

NASA Langley Research Center appreciate the explanation!

+NASA Langley Research Center do Mythbusters know about it. Adam vill get nerdgasm over it...

NASA Langley Research Center smarter everyday commented on another one of your videos about those dots. He said he'd love to talk about the data. I think a lot of people would like to see you guys talk :)

The engine would be faulty in a case of a plane crashing most likely

Jason Burton I think is not likely to survive. This is a 100 ft free-fall, this means a vertical speed of +4800ft/min or 26.4 m/s. Aircrafts can sustain a FORWARD uniform deceleration of 9gs, that means around 12 feet for that speed. But again, this is a free-fall.

+Jason Burton Our engineers say according to the crash test dummy data one would have survived with severe injuries to the pelvic region. The other would not have. That is why it is important to have improved emergency locator transmitter - to get to the occupant who has a chance of surviving the quicker researchers can get there.

+NASA Langley Research Center Thats amazing! Nasa, what about the crashes conducted in the 80‘s, “Crash test of Four Identical High-wing Single-engine Airplane“. Are they also survivable? I assume so, since it‘s the same nominal velocity?

+NASA Langley Research Center Oops sorry for the typo - the word "researchers" should be rescuers.

NASA Langley Research Center injury criteria don’t predict death, but rather probability of injury.

I know right all those "scientists" standing around on the clock in the control room. Lol. Thats alotta payroll

Robert Bardos do you want to be safe in aircraft? Each person has a specific job, and there are many organizations that participated in this test.

Ivan Ivanov, Too much of an impact is useless as the occupants would die immediately. The goal is to test to create better ELTs for reasonably survivable crashes. If you take a car with GM's On-Star system and run it directly into a bridge support at 90 mph it does not matter if the On-Star system works. The occupants will die immediately at that speed. If you run it directly into a bridge support at 30 mph then the occupants might have survived, but be in need of quick medical intention, thus it matters if On-Star's crash notification system works.

David Hoffman beacon must survive. it can report about impact acceleration. so you can reduce search party to reduce costs

Ivan Ivanov, I do not want the ELT beacon to have to do multiple tasks beyond what it needs to do to signal a crash. That increases costs. If we want crash survivable flight data recorders, cockpit vice recorders, and cockpit video recorders then that needs to be a separate project. An ELT designed for a 400 knot jetliner crash is going to be too expensive and too heavy for general aviation crashes. We want the ELT industry to upgrade the general aviation ELTs in a reasonable time frame and they need to be able to project a reasonable profit from doing so. Thus going for the low hanging easy to reach capability increases. The aircraft owners have to see this as a reasonable benefit to cost ratio before they agree to upgrade. Look at all the trouble we are having with the costly ADS-B upgrade.