I agree that you should not watch National Geographic. You might get the idea, based on the fact that the magazine of that name is respected, that their info about aviation is legitimate; nothing could be farther from the truth. It is sensationalized misinformation designed to get ratings, and you know what good ratings Jerry Springer gets. That is what the public seems to want.

First, you miss the point that accidents are rare. In fact, they are so rare that any approach that was a balanced view of risks to your life would put flying way down the list.

Second, when you view TV about accidents, or when you repeatedly imagine an accident, you end of putting that into memory as if it were fact. Then, when you recall it, you get the impression you are recalling fact. You aren't.

So to simply address your questions tends to lend it status which it does not have. These things you are asking about are so rare as to be irrelevant. But never the less:

1. Smoke hood. If there is an accident, smoke is the primary risk, not fire. There are multiple exits; being stuck inside a plane should not be a problem. Sill, I never thought it was worth the effort to carry one around even though I flew several days a week.

2. If there is some reason to expect an accident, fuel is dumped.

3. Sioux City involved trying to fly a plane after all the flight control hydraulics had been taken out. (Douglas rushed through the design of the MD-80 and did not do their homework; the MD-80 had several problems which good engineering would have avoided.) Controlling the plane in a very primitive way was their problem; dumping fuel was not practical.