Share
Digg
StumbleUpon
RedditThe rules imposed on airline passengers continue to generate confusion. After reading our explanation of why iPods aren’t allowed to be played during takeoff and landing, Bobbi Barlow, of Daytona Beach, Florida, asks:
“Can you explain why the seat backs must be in their most upright (and uncomfortable) position during takeoff and landing? Can it be possible that the three inches or so it moves affects the safety of the person occupying the seat or the person behind them? The science behind this escapes me, and I would so love an answer!”
There are two main reasons why flight attendants pester people to keep those seats up—to keep injuries to a minimum during a crash and to clear the maximum amount of space for a quick exit.
The science is pretty basic, as explained by Brian Manning, a flight attendant for Mesa Airlines. “When the seat is up, it is locked. When the seat is back, it’s not locked. In the event of an emergency, an unlocked seat has more force during impact, and the thrusting forward of that seat can cause passenger injury.”
Like a catapult, the farther back the seat, the greater distance your head would travel during an impact, and the more force would be generated. Those three inches can add to the whiplash effect.
Also, Manning notes, people sitting behind a seat that is reclined or unlocked will not be able to brace properly. And yes, there are proper ways of bracing. In the late 1980s the FAA researched various ways to prepare the body for impact, using test dummies.
Before an airliner is certified, the manufacturer has to demonstrate that it can be evacuated quickly. For this reason, Section 121.311(d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations requires seat backs that can be locked into position. Having passengers weave around jutting seats as they shimmy into the aisle simply wouldn’t do.
“Since most accidents occur during takeoff and landing, it is for the safety of everyone onboard the aircraft to have all seats in their upright and locked position,” says Manning.
It is a big tin can with wings. "In the event of a water landing"? Give me a break - nobody will ever need to use their so called flotation device. Seat up or back. Give me a break! When a plane crashes it explodes/falls apart/tears apart. I severely doubt the position of the seat will have any impact on the crash and the shape of people being ripped from their seats, etc... Airplanes are very big and go fast and when they crash it is not like a car hitting something at 10 mph...
Posted by Tommy MacLuckie on December 6,2008 | 08:23AM
Many crashes are survivable, especially ones that happen at takeoff or landing (when the seatback rule is in effect). In 2005, for example, an Air France plane overran the runway at Toronto-Pearson; everyone survived without major injuries despite the aircraft sliding into a ravine and catching on fire. As for water landings: in 1970 a DC-9 was successfully ditched in the Caribbean after running out of fuel. While 23 died, another 40 survived and were rescued. Investigators believe that more people would have survived if the crew had given passengers a warning to brace for impact, and "warn passengers" has since been added to the emergency landing checklist.
Posted by Christopher Davis on December 8,2008 | 09:11AM
This requirement is dumb. This all comes down to a trade-off. Are you safer with the seat upright? Perhaps in some nominal sense. But, you would also be safer if you had to assume the crash position and surround yourself in bubble wrap every time a plane took off. Why not require that too? Because there is a point at which there is so little return on the investment of time, energy, money, and inconvenience that rationale people do not make that investment. That's why. The odds of any person ever being in a plane crash during take-off or landing in which that extra few degrees of angle would make a difference are inconceivably small. This is like telling people to brace when the plane is going down.
Posted by Kevin on December 30,2008 | 11:34PM