Q:

In the event of a crash over thick snow or a forest, would it be safer inside the aircraft or free-falling?

I just saw this question about humans surviving terminal velocity free-falls, sometimes even with little injury depending on the surface conditions, particularly over forests, hills, or thick snow cover.
That made me wonder, if a passenger of:

a large commercial aircraft, perhaps a Boeing 737
crashing from 5000 meters or higher
above a large forest or thick snow

had the choice between free falling and buckling up to crash with the aircraft, which option would offer him the greatest chance of surviving?
I'm thinking the plane might offer lower falling speed, and physical protection, but also pose the dangers of giant engines, explosions, and crushed metal / shrapnel. Perhaps the answer is that over a forest, the free fall could be safer, and over snow the plane could be safer, but that's pure speculation on my part. 

A:

Statistically, there has got to be graphs you can combine to show the number of airplane crashes to fatalities and a graph with skydives (without a chute/malfunctions) to fatalities. I'd venture to say that the odds are far greater to surviving an airplane crash than a freefall.
Let's look at the factors...
A freefall:

your velocity in not slowed by anything
your body is not protected by anything
you have no control on where to 'crash'

A crash landing:

passengers are slowed greatly by the aircraft
passengers are greatly protected physically (airframes are designed to minimize risks from explosions, shrapnel, and crash G's)
there is a greater chance the aircraft can be controlled somewhat to crash in the best place.

The only time it would be better to jump without a parachute is if you are this guy or the aircraft is about to be torn apart.

