Why Politicians Represent the Worst Choice in an Airplane Crash Scenario

The question ldquo;If you were in an aeroplane that was going to crash unless you threw someone out, who would you throw out?rdquo; has sparked much debate. While the intuitive answer may be ldquo;throw out a heavier person to lighten the load,rdquo; this strategy is far from scientifically sound. The key to understanding the correct answer lies in the principles of aerodynamics.

The Role of Aerodynamics in Survival (A Bible Lesson from Jonah)

Before we dive into the technicalities, letrsquo;s take a quick detour to the story of Jonah as a moral lesson. According to the Bible, Jonah was thrown into the sea to save the ship in a storm. This story is not about weight reduction but about following divine orders and the consequences of disobedience. In this hypothetical aeroplane scenario, we would similarly not prioritize throwing out a passenger based on weight but rather based on their decision-making and ability to contribute to a collective effort to ensure survival.

In one specific variation of the question, a Quora user suggested kicking the Quora question maker out of the plane, which is a humorous twist but not a practical solution.

The Myth of Weight Reduction in Airplanes

This common misconception is that reducing weight from an aircraft can help it travel further. However, this is simply not true. The distance an aircraft can glide is not related to weight; it is determined by the glide ratio, which is influenced by the airplanersquo;s aerodynamic properties and lift-to-drag ratio.

The Science Behind Gliding

The glide ratio is a function of the lift-to-drag (L/D) curve, which is innate to the aircraft. This means that any change in weight, while it may affect the time the aircraft can glide, does not change the glide angle or the distance covered.

The lift-to-drag ratio is the fundamental component that determines the gliding range. If two aircraft have the same L/D ratio but different weights, and they start a glide from the same altitude, the heavier aircraft, gliding at a higher airspeed, will reach the same touchdown point more quickly but cover the same distance as the lighter aircraft, albeit in a longer time frame.

Practical Considerations and Politicians as a Case Study

Using this knowledge, if I were faced with the decision of who to throw out of the plane, it would be far more logical to throw out someone who is not helpful to the situation, rather than based on their weight. This is especially relevant when discussing real-life scenarios, such as the political landscape. While it may be tempting to view all politicians as the quintessential heaviest passenger, this would be a severe overgeneralization.

Politicians, in general, are not the only ones who would be useful to throw out in a scenario like this. Anyone who is not actively contributing to the overall survival of the other passengers would be a better candidate. However, the sheer number of politicians in the Nepali parliament (601) and the limited passenger capacity (452 for a Boeing 747) introduces another layer of complexity. Even if we were to throw out all the politicians, many would still be left without a suitable aircraft to land.

Finally, the runway length and safety of the airport also come into play. The airport in Nepal is not designed for large aircraft like the Boeing 747, further restricting options even if we had room for them.

Conclusion

The airplane crash scenario is more about rational thinking, teamwork, and prioritizing those who can help in a survival situation. Whether this situation involves a political class or simply a random group of people, the decision should be based on their ability to aid and work together rather than their weight. The practical and scientific approach is more important in ensuring an optimized outcome.

References