Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?Why don't airlines provide smoke hoods?Why do you have to keep your seat belt fastened after landing?Why were the TWA TriStar middle seats smaller than the aisle seats?Is there research being done on light aircraft safety that involves a comprehensive flight protection system that adresses all risks?Why aren't the passenger seats designed as jump seats (foldable) in commercial airlines?Could a golf ball damage an airliner?Why do airlines require passengers to return to their allocated seats for landing?What are the technical details of how airline seats are installed on an airliner?Where are the black triangle'd seats?Why don’t aircraft use run-flat tyres?
An array in a equation with curly braces in both sides
How bug prioritization works in agile projects vs non agile
What is the unit of time_lock_delta in LND?
Which big number is bigger?
A Note on N!
Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?
What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?
How much of a wave function must reside inside event horizon for it to be consumed by the black hole?
What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?
What does a straight horizontal line above a few notes, after a changed tempo mean?
Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?
Unknown code in script
Co-worker works way more than he should
What is the most expensive material in the world that could be used to create Pun-Pun's lute?
Can a level 2 Warlock take one level in rogue, then continue advancing as a warlock?
Is Diceware more secure than a long passphrase?
What was Apollo 13's "Little Jolt" after MECO?
A strange hotel
What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?
Apply a different color ramp to subset of categorized symbols in QGIS?
Can someone publish a story that happened to you?
My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer
Partitioning values in a sequence
Is this a typo in Section 1.8.1 Mathematics for Computer Science?
Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?
Why don't airlines provide smoke hoods?Why do you have to keep your seat belt fastened after landing?Why were the TWA TriStar middle seats smaller than the aisle seats?Is there research being done on light aircraft safety that involves a comprehensive flight protection system that adresses all risks?Why aren't the passenger seats designed as jump seats (foldable) in commercial airlines?Could a golf ball damage an airliner?Why do airlines require passengers to return to their allocated seats for landing?What are the technical details of how airline seats are installed on an airliner?Where are the black triangle'd seats?Why don’t aircraft use run-flat tyres?
$begingroup$
Virtually all first-class airline seats, and many to most business-class seats, recline all the way down, either as lie-flat seats (where the seat reclines to a 180º seatback-seatpan angle, but the fully-reclined seat is still tilted somewhat forwards relative to the cabin floor) or flat-bed seats (where the seat reclines to a truly flat surface that can also, as the name indicates, serve as a bed).
These seats are, of course, equipped with seatbelts, but I’m having great trouble seeing how even a tightly-fastened seatbelt would provide any protection to a flat-lying occupant, as any significant longitudinal force would cause the occupant of the seat to slide under the belt and out of the seat.12
Although these seats, like all airline passenger seats, are required to be locked in the fully-upright position except in cruise flight, this still leaves the occupants (especially those in flat-bed seats) vulnerable during the (sometimes quite long) portion of the flight when they are allowed to recline their seats to flatness; a moderate head-on (or tail-on, for that matter) gust would be enough to separate these occupants from their fully-reclined seats, as would any other event capable of suddenly increasing or decreasing an aircraft’s inertial speed too quickly for the “fasten seat belts” sign to provide any warning (not, as noted above, that fastening their seatbelts would actually provide any significant degree of protection to the occupants in question, but it could conceivably induce them to derecline their seats in preparation), such as a flight-control malfunction or evasive action to avoid a MAC (both of which produce large speed excursions secondary to rapid changes in attitude and altitude).
For that matter, even vertical accelerations with no longitudinal component would still be expected to injure flat-lying passengers more severely than those in an ordinary sitting position, for reasons illustrated below:
Am I missing something?
1: This is known as submarining, and is a major problem with car seatbelts (even with seats that don’t recline at all), which are much harder to fasten tightly around the pelvis than aircraft seatbelts.
2: If the belt were fastened tightly enough to pin the occupant to the seat even under considerable longitudinal force, this would
- be highly uncomfortable for the occupant, and
- upon the application of significant longitudinal forces, drag across the occupant’s abdomen until catching on their ribcage, causing severe internal abdominal injuries plus likely breaking the bottom few ribs.
safety seats seatbelts
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Virtually all first-class airline seats, and many to most business-class seats, recline all the way down, either as lie-flat seats (where the seat reclines to a 180º seatback-seatpan angle, but the fully-reclined seat is still tilted somewhat forwards relative to the cabin floor) or flat-bed seats (where the seat reclines to a truly flat surface that can also, as the name indicates, serve as a bed).
These seats are, of course, equipped with seatbelts, but I’m having great trouble seeing how even a tightly-fastened seatbelt would provide any protection to a flat-lying occupant, as any significant longitudinal force would cause the occupant of the seat to slide under the belt and out of the seat.12
Although these seats, like all airline passenger seats, are required to be locked in the fully-upright position except in cruise flight, this still leaves the occupants (especially those in flat-bed seats) vulnerable during the (sometimes quite long) portion of the flight when they are allowed to recline their seats to flatness; a moderate head-on (or tail-on, for that matter) gust would be enough to separate these occupants from their fully-reclined seats, as would any other event capable of suddenly increasing or decreasing an aircraft’s inertial speed too quickly for the “fasten seat belts” sign to provide any warning (not, as noted above, that fastening their seatbelts would actually provide any significant degree of protection to the occupants in question, but it could conceivably induce them to derecline their seats in preparation), such as a flight-control malfunction or evasive action to avoid a MAC (both of which produce large speed excursions secondary to rapid changes in attitude and altitude).
For that matter, even vertical accelerations with no longitudinal component would still be expected to injure flat-lying passengers more severely than those in an ordinary sitting position, for reasons illustrated below:
Am I missing something?
1: This is known as submarining, and is a major problem with car seatbelts (even with seats that don’t recline at all), which are much harder to fasten tightly around the pelvis than aircraft seatbelts.
2: If the belt were fastened tightly enough to pin the occupant to the seat even under considerable longitudinal force, this would
- be highly uncomfortable for the occupant, and
- upon the application of significant longitudinal forces, drag across the occupant’s abdomen until catching on their ribcage, causing severe internal abdominal injuries plus likely breaking the bottom few ribs.
safety seats seatbelts
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like your drawing.
$endgroup$
– vasin1987
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Virtually all first-class airline seats, and many to most business-class seats, recline all the way down, either as lie-flat seats (where the seat reclines to a 180º seatback-seatpan angle, but the fully-reclined seat is still tilted somewhat forwards relative to the cabin floor) or flat-bed seats (where the seat reclines to a truly flat surface that can also, as the name indicates, serve as a bed).
These seats are, of course, equipped with seatbelts, but I’m having great trouble seeing how even a tightly-fastened seatbelt would provide any protection to a flat-lying occupant, as any significant longitudinal force would cause the occupant of the seat to slide under the belt and out of the seat.12
Although these seats, like all airline passenger seats, are required to be locked in the fully-upright position except in cruise flight, this still leaves the occupants (especially those in flat-bed seats) vulnerable during the (sometimes quite long) portion of the flight when they are allowed to recline their seats to flatness; a moderate head-on (or tail-on, for that matter) gust would be enough to separate these occupants from their fully-reclined seats, as would any other event capable of suddenly increasing or decreasing an aircraft’s inertial speed too quickly for the “fasten seat belts” sign to provide any warning (not, as noted above, that fastening their seatbelts would actually provide any significant degree of protection to the occupants in question, but it could conceivably induce them to derecline their seats in preparation), such as a flight-control malfunction or evasive action to avoid a MAC (both of which produce large speed excursions secondary to rapid changes in attitude and altitude).
For that matter, even vertical accelerations with no longitudinal component would still be expected to injure flat-lying passengers more severely than those in an ordinary sitting position, for reasons illustrated below:
Am I missing something?
1: This is known as submarining, and is a major problem with car seatbelts (even with seats that don’t recline at all), which are much harder to fasten tightly around the pelvis than aircraft seatbelts.
2: If the belt were fastened tightly enough to pin the occupant to the seat even under considerable longitudinal force, this would
- be highly uncomfortable for the occupant, and
- upon the application of significant longitudinal forces, drag across the occupant’s abdomen until catching on their ribcage, causing severe internal abdominal injuries plus likely breaking the bottom few ribs.
safety seats seatbelts
$endgroup$
Virtually all first-class airline seats, and many to most business-class seats, recline all the way down, either as lie-flat seats (where the seat reclines to a 180º seatback-seatpan angle, but the fully-reclined seat is still tilted somewhat forwards relative to the cabin floor) or flat-bed seats (where the seat reclines to a truly flat surface that can also, as the name indicates, serve as a bed).
These seats are, of course, equipped with seatbelts, but I’m having great trouble seeing how even a tightly-fastened seatbelt would provide any protection to a flat-lying occupant, as any significant longitudinal force would cause the occupant of the seat to slide under the belt and out of the seat.12
Although these seats, like all airline passenger seats, are required to be locked in the fully-upright position except in cruise flight, this still leaves the occupants (especially those in flat-bed seats) vulnerable during the (sometimes quite long) portion of the flight when they are allowed to recline their seats to flatness; a moderate head-on (or tail-on, for that matter) gust would be enough to separate these occupants from their fully-reclined seats, as would any other event capable of suddenly increasing or decreasing an aircraft’s inertial speed too quickly for the “fasten seat belts” sign to provide any warning (not, as noted above, that fastening their seatbelts would actually provide any significant degree of protection to the occupants in question, but it could conceivably induce them to derecline their seats in preparation), such as a flight-control malfunction or evasive action to avoid a MAC (both of which produce large speed excursions secondary to rapid changes in attitude and altitude).
For that matter, even vertical accelerations with no longitudinal component would still be expected to injure flat-lying passengers more severely than those in an ordinary sitting position, for reasons illustrated below:
Am I missing something?
1: This is known as submarining, and is a major problem with car seatbelts (even with seats that don’t recline at all), which are much harder to fasten tightly around the pelvis than aircraft seatbelts.
2: If the belt were fastened tightly enough to pin the occupant to the seat even under considerable longitudinal force, this would
- be highly uncomfortable for the occupant, and
- upon the application of significant longitudinal forces, drag across the occupant’s abdomen until catching on their ribcage, causing severe internal abdominal injuries plus likely breaking the bottom few ribs.
safety seats seatbelts
safety seats seatbelts
edited 2 hours ago
Sean
asked 2 hours ago
SeanSean
6,49543082
6,49543082
$begingroup$
Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like your drawing.
$endgroup$
– vasin1987
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like your drawing.
$endgroup$
– vasin1987
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like your drawing.
$endgroup$
– vasin1987
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like your drawing.
$endgroup$
– vasin1987
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.
For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.
Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.
In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).
Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.
Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63717%2fdon-t-seats-that-recline-flat-defeat-the-purpose-of-having-seatbelts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.
For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.
Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.
In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).
Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.
For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.
Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.
In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).
Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.
For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.
Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.
In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).
Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.
$endgroup$
I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.
For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.
Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.
In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).
Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Zach LiptonZach Lipton
6,91912943
6,91912943
$begingroup$
Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.
Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.
Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.
Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.
$endgroup$
Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.
Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.
answered 1 hour ago
busdriverbusdriver
4936
4936
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63717%2fdon-t-seats-that-recline-flat-defeat-the-purpose-of-having-seatbelts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like your drawing.
$endgroup$
– vasin1987
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago