Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

airspacemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#51

Post by dmurray »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #20
runako wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data for transport modes excluding motorcycles: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics... (airplanes are zero most years) Data for motorcycles: https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcyc... Eyeballing, it looks like motorcycles have roughly ~50x as many fatalities per mile as passenger autos.

Commercial aircraft are very safe, GA aircraft (your uncle with a cessna), are about as safe as motorcycles. https://inspire.eaa.org/2017/05/11/how-safe-is-it/

I don't know why this was downvoted. It's true, and an important correction to the GP's NSC link and the claim that "airplanes are zero most years". Notice that that page compares "scheduled airlines" to "passenger vehicles" (I think they mean cars? Since airplanes, trains and buses are also passenger vehicles...) but importantly does not include GA.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#52

Post by orangepanda »

gumby wrote: post #5

Having been once in a aircraft-damaging emergency landing* decades ago I am surprised lap only belts are still the norm. There's a reason the crew has four point restraints, and I'd like to have it too. * I won't call it a crash since the aircraft made it to an airport and to a runway. We had equipment failure in flight so there was plenty of time for the flight attendants to review our crash positions, confiscate sh…

> There's a reason the crew has four point restraints, and I'd like to have it too.

Isnt it because their seats are facing the other way?

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#53

Post by gxqoz »

orev wrote: post #25
gumby wrote: post #5

Having been once in a aircraft-damaging emergency landing* decades ago I am surprised lap only belts are still the norm. There's a reason the crew has four point restraints, and I'd like to have it too. * I won't call it a crash since the aircraft made it to an airport and to a runway. We had equipment failure in flight so there was plenty of time for the flight attendants to review our crash positions, confiscate sh…

This is what most people seem to get wrong about airplane seat belts—they are not there for the same reason as in cars: crashes. They are there to keep people from flying around and getting injured during turbulence. Crashes in commercial planes are so rare that any single one almost always makes the news, while turbulence is extremely common. Let’s be fair and say that a seatbelt is not going to make a whit of diffe…

I was reading a recent article on the NSTB's increased focus on reducing injuries from airplane turbulence and was surprised how low the baseline currently is.

"Accidents on U.S. airlines have become increasingly rare except for one category of in-flight mishap that has remained stubbornly prevalent: turbulence that leads to serious injuries.

More than 65% of severe injuries — or 28 of 43 — logged by U.S. accident investigators from 2017 through 2020 on airliners resulted from planes encountering bumpy skies, triggered by atmospheric conditions that could be worsening due to climate change."

Sure, let's reduce injuries. But 7 serious injuries per year seems quite good already compared to injuries from other forms of transportation. I wonder how many people are injured on shuttle buses to airports that lack seat belts. I'd have to guess it's more than that.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/turbulence-continues-t...

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#54

Post by Spooky23 »

barrkel wrote: post #48
Spooky23 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes sense. Motorcycles are unforgiving in terms of safety features and attract disorganized and reckless people like flies to light. Successful pilots are the opposite personality. They tend to be adventurous in terms of seeking experiences but are able to embrace following strict rules.

Per unscientific survey cited in https://www.rideapart.com/news/254972/why-your-next-motorcyc... 85% of pilots have motorcycle licenses. There are many breeds of motorcycle rider, as I'm sure there are different breeds of pilot. The pipe and slippers brigade very much embrace following strict rules. In the UK, you'll frequently find them in RoSPA, where they follow the System of Motorcycle Control. I don't know how t…

Exactly, better said! I didn’t mean to imply that riders are reckless, just that the reckless are attracted to bikes.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#55

Post by ceejayoz »

orangepanda wrote: post #52
gumby wrote: post #5

Having been once in a aircraft-damaging emergency landing* decades ago I am surprised lap only belts are still the norm. There's a reason the crew has four point restraints, and I'd like to have it too. * I won't call it a crash since the aircraft made it to an airport and to a runway. We had equipment failure in flight so there was plenty of time for the flight attendants to review our crash positions, confiscate sh…

> There's a reason the crew has four point restraints, and I'd like to have it too. Isnt it because their seats are facing the other way?

No; that helps. Planes tend to crash into things, not get rear ended. Facing backwards means they aren’t flung forwards into things.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#56

Post by gumby »

orev wrote: post #25
gumby wrote: post #5

Having been once in a aircraft-damaging emergency landing* decades ago I am surprised lap only belts are still the norm. There's a reason the crew has four point restraints, and I'd like to have it too. * I won't call it a crash since the aircraft made it to an airport and to a runway. We had equipment failure in flight so there was plenty of time for the flight attendants to review our crash positions, confiscate sh…

This is what most people seem to get wrong about airplane seat belts—they are not there for the same reason as in cars: crashes. They are there to keep people from flying around and getting injured during turbulence. Crashes in commercial planes are so rare that any single one almost always makes the news, while turbulence is extremely common. Let’s be fair and say that a seatbelt is not going to make a whit of diffe…

This is a good point: the number of such incidents is so low the cost (including social resistance) doesn't make it worth it.

I would like it because I mostly sleep on the plane. Also I take a lot of transoceanic flights (or did pre covid) which seem to have more turbulence than transcontinental ones (perhaps less discretion for rerouting, especially ETOPS flights?).

I miss the back-facing seats which I always chose when I had the option, as they are much safer (except for the risk of flying debris).

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#57

Post by gumby »

orangepanda wrote: post #52
gumby wrote: post #5

Having been once in a aircraft-damaging emergency landing* decades ago I am surprised lap only belts are still the norm. There's a reason the crew has four point restraints, and I'd like to have it too. * I won't call it a crash since the aircraft made it to an airport and to a runway. We had equipment failure in flight so there was plenty of time for the flight attendants to review our crash positions, confiscate sh…

> There's a reason the crew has four point restraints, and I'd like to have it too. Isnt it because their seats are facing the other way?

Regardless of orientation they have four point. As I noted in a different comment, I miss the rear facing seats; I used to choose them by preference and on trains or other vehicles with rear facing seats I always select them.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#58

Post by JCharante »

mpalczewski wrote: post #8
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. The "fatalities per mile" chart is pretty astounding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Fa...

Hmm, after looking at that, and always being told that airlines are the safest. I was surprised they are only safest by that one metric (fatalities / distance) and not fatalities per trip or fatalities per hour.

Well what counts as a trip? Surely a trip down the street to a Bodega would be safer than flying across an ocean.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#59

Post by gumby »

anonAndOn wrote: post #38
Jtsummers wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably what was briefly discussed in the article. So long as your seat stays anchored, a multipoint harness will keep you in position better. The injuries in the one accident were from people being moved side-to-side, not forward or up and down. The seatbelts didn't injure them, but the armrests did. A multipoint harness could (if worn properly) reduce those kinds of injuries. Of course, in a total failure where th…

At an airline training session I attended, a man who survived a famous passenger aircraft crash advised that one should get as low as possible in their seat and put their knees up against the back of the seat in front of you, while still buckled. The passengers that died around him were killed by the heavy luggage exploding out of the overheads and breaking their necks, so it's important to have your head below the s…

Interesting; this was the position they had us all adopt.

They also moved the "old"* people in the exit rows and asked a couple of us young men to take their places. Back then there was no pre-questioning to see if you're willing and able to open the exit windows. Interestingly, they gave us special instruction which was: "Don't open the window unless I [flight attendant] am disabled. I might not be opening it for a reason."

* probably around the age I am now, or younger, and I don't feel old. But I am a lot fitter today than people my age tended to be 30 years ago.

Re: How the airline industry got wise to seat belts

#60

Post by evgen »

bmitc wrote: post #37
ceejayoz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two seconds of inattention in a car is a lot more likely to kill you than it is in a plane. It’s fairly constant risk - going off the shoulder is just a few dozen feet at most. They also tend to be less well maintained, and the other participants less trained.

That makes sense at first glance, but it's something I'm in control of. I was even thinking of this before, because the comparison is a little mismatched. I'm 100% likely to be a passenger when I'm in any plane, whereas I'm probably >98% likely to be a driver when I'm in a car. I'm not sure why I was downvoted, because I'm just stating I'd like to understand (data/studies) instead of people's anecdotes and opinions,…

When you are in a plane there is a 100% probability that the driver will be a trained professional, while according to your stats there is less than a 2% chance that your driver will be a trained professional when you are in a car.

While I have no hard stats I would also assume that a plane is much safer when something goes wrong. Why?

1) Professional 'driver' who has trained for years to handle risks and failure scenarios and practices these on a regular basis.

2) Redundancy and graceful failure is designed into many of the components and systems on a plane, while cars tend towards the cheapest component or system possible unless mandated by law.

3) Space (both altitude and the fact that the sky is basically empty) provides time to solve some problems before they become catastrophic failures and makes other classes of problems very unlikely.

If you blow a tire, run into a deer, or have a transmission failure while you are cruising down the highway at 80mph you have seconds (at most) to react and respond. If a plane hits birds, has an engine fail, or loses some other system they usually have minutes to troubleshoot the problem and redundant systems that prevent the plane from just falling out of the sky.

Post reply on HN