suitability of airline seat belts

Mint Sauce

have thought about this before on their suitabilty, and wondered, why do airline passenger seats only have lap belt type seat belts, surly if the restraint keeps you in year seat in an acident, what about the possible back injuries occoured with your body almost folding over around it in the event of a sudden stop

surly for incresed pasenger safty, i would have though a car seat belt type, or atleast something similar would be more suitable

Our man in Havana

Probably boils down to money as per normal. Note that FA's have a full harness type belt.

Mint Sauce

Bond-007 wrote: »

Probably boils down to money as per normal. Note that FA's have a full harness type belt.

noticed that last time i flew, they had the full harness on during take off, then reduced it to the lap belt untill they started their duties

Jimbo

I've wondered avout this too. Surely if you were in a crash, there's a substantial risk of organ/back injury?

Although, saying that, anything other than a lap-belt would make an uncomfortable flight alot worse

pclancy

I always just assumed that if there was any kind of serious crash you're probably gunna be too fecked for any kind of seatbelt to be of use The main safety feature of lapbelts seems to be to stop people falling around if the plane drops some height quickly in midair due to an airpocket etc or there is some kind of serious decompression/structural damage that means you'd be blown out without it. I'd imagine as sad above lap belts would nearly do more damage to you then good.

Our man in Havana

And then of course does the brace position actually do more harm than good?

IRLConor

Wouldn't a full harness prevent you from getting into the brace position? Without neck support I suspect a full harness in a forward-facing seat would be pretty dangerous in a high energy crash.

I'd prefer a full harness and a rear-facing seat.

IRLConor

Bond-007 wrote: »

And then of course does the brace position actually do more harm than good?

There's a Mythbusters episode about that. Their conclusion was that the brace position was better than sitting upright. They also appeared to confirm that the major risk is breaking your leg and not being able to escape a crashed aircraft.

FlutterinBantam

Cutting to the chase,airline seat belts are shag all use except in perhaps turbulence.

the are merely window dressing to cope with the most minor of incidents,and act as a placebo for passengers.

Once you realise that, it's much easier.

jmayo

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Cutting to the chase,airline seat belts are shag all use except in perhaps turbulence.

the are merely window dressing to cope with the most minor of incidents,and act as a placebo for passengers.

Once you realise that, it's much easier.

+1
A seat belt in a car is in operation in 2 dimensional space, well unelss you go airborne aka Dukes of Hazard or the A-Team, so it can prevent or lessen a lot of injuries, but for most airplane accidents they are going to do shag all for you particularly if you drop uncontrollably from 5,000 feet, never mind cruising altitude of 30,000 ft plus.
You could look at it this way, will a seat belt help if you drive off the Cliffs of Moher ?
Of course full harness may help keep you attached to your seat if the cabin depressurises or tears open and you and your seat are sucked out aka the flight in Hawaii a number of years back.

bushy...

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Cutting to the chase,airline seat belts are shag all use except in perhaps turbulence.
the are merely window dressing to cope with the most minor of incidents,and act as a placebo for passengers.
Once you realise that, it's much easier.

I suppose it stops you being thrown around and killing others that just might survive too though , either way anyone in these two lads position would need more than deep-heat the day after :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8cAwR4_7Wg&feature=related

IRLConor

jmayo wrote: »

+1
A seat belt in a car is in operation in 2 dimensional space, well unelss you go airborne aka Dukes of Hazard or the A-Team, so it can prevent or lessen a lot of injuries, but for most airplane accidents they are going to do shag all for you particularly if you drop uncontrollably from 5,000 feet, never mind cruising altitude of 30,000 ft plus.
You could look at it this way, will a seat belt help if you drive off the Cliffs of Moher ?

Even if a better belt/seat won't help in a high energy crash (like flying into a mountain in cloud) any reasonable measure that increases the threshold of death/injury is worth having.

I did a quick search and I can't find statistics about the distribution of crash energies. It would be interesting to see if there is a class of crashes which produces injuries/deaths which would be preventable by better belt/seat design.

jmayo wrote: »

Of course full harness may help keep you attached to your seat if the cabin depressurises or tears open and you and your seat are sucked out aka the flight in Hawaii a number of years back.

On that flight (Aloha Airlines Flight 243) the only person blown out of the aircraft was a flight attendant who was not strapped in. All the passengers were seated and since the seatbelt light was on I presume many if not most of them had their lap belts on.

jmayo

IRLConor wrote: »

Even if a better belt/seat won't help in a high energy crash (like flying into a mountain in cloud) any reasonable measure that increases the threshold of death/injury is worth having.

I did a quick search and I can't find statistics about the distribution of crash energies. It would be interesting to see if there is a class of crashes which produces injuries/deaths which would be preventable by better belt/seat design.

On that flight (Aloha Airlines Flight 243) the only person blown out of the aircraft was a flight attendant who was not strapped in. All the passengers were seated and since the seatbelt light was on I presume many if not most of them had their lap belts on.

Ok wrong example.
Better one was the United Airlines Boeing 747 on route to Auckland/Sydney that lost the cargo door, suffered decompression and 9 passengers sucked out with 5 rows of seats.
Remember that New Zealand family of one guy lost led calls for Boeing to admit that problem with cargo doors, which of course they denied.

I don't have breakdown on this, but I would guess that most airline aircraft crashes would be catastrophic and in those cases seatbelts aint going to help.
The airlines would probably look at it as money spend on something that would provide only benefit in tiny percentage of cases, thus not cost effective to install high tech solution.
Otherwise we would have had airbags installed.
Ok better belt systems would help incases like recent one in Heathrow where landed short or Sligo where skidded off runway but maybe of more concern in those ones is preventing fire.

Just one more reason to fly private aircraft with it's own shute system.
Of course other big reason is you are not jammed in middle seats beside large Welsh guy with BO for 14 hours

IRLConor

jmayo wrote: »

Ok wrong example.
Better one was the United Airlines Boeing 747 on route to Auckland/Sydney that lost the cargo door, suffered decompression and 9 passengers sucked out with 5 rows of seats.
Remember that New Zealand family of one guy lost led calls for Boeing to admit that problem with cargo doors, which of course they denied.

I don't understand, are you suggesting that not being belted in would have saved them? If the pressure difference was enough to blow out 5 rows of seats I don't think that the belts would make much difference.

jmayo wrote: »

I don't have breakdown on this, but I would guess that most airline aircraft crashes would be catastrophic and in those cases seatbelts aint going to help.

Maybe most airliner crashes are catastrophic (I don't know) but I suspect that there are a larger number of airliner accidents which cause minor injuries or low numbers of deaths. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the majority of emergencies are things like runway over-/undershoots and heavy landings due to weather or bird strikes.

jmayo wrote: »

The airlines would probably look at it as money spend on something that would provide only benefit in tiny percentage of cases, thus not cost effective to install high tech solution.

Of course, I neglect economics when thinking about safety. The airlines can't afford to do this. :-/

jmayo wrote: »

Ok better belt systems would help incases like recent one in Heathrow where landed short or Sligo where skidded off runway but maybe of more concern in those ones is preventing fire.

Indeed, preventing fire in those cases is important. On the other hand, if there is fire you want to make sure you have every chance of landing with all of your limbs intact so that you have some chance of escaping said fire.

jmayo wrote: »

Just one more reason to fly private aircraft with it's own shute system.

Or something with an ejector seat!

jmayo wrote: »

Of course other big reason is you are not jammed in middle seats beside large Welsh guy with BO for 14 hours

+1

... or in a window seat where the middle and aisle seats are occupied by OAPs who need assistance to get on and off the plane. In the case of an evacuation they'd be going nowhere, they'd be just obstacles.

Davidth88

Guys,

I clearly remember the Kegworth BMI crash. There seatbelts without doubt saved lives , however there were a large number of broken lower limbs.

BMI changed their ' brace ' stance , and even today I believe are different to other airlines in that you place the feet forward rather than backward ( or it may be the other way round ).

Anyway , I have formed a strange habit recently of tightening my s/belt on landing and take off ... no idea why , just started doing it about a year ago.

dogmatix

IRLConor wrote: »

Wouldn't a full harness prevent you from getting into the brace position? Without neck support I suspect a full harness in a forward-facing seat would be pretty dangerous in a high energy crash.

I'd prefer a full harness and a rear-facing seat.

I suppose rear facing seats would be safer - did'nt a few jets in the 60's experiment with this, albiet briefly? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the early Tridents or VC10's had rear facing seats. But could be wrong. And don't military transports have rear facing seats for troop carrying?

I'm sure it would be safer - but passengers would hate them. I always avoid rear facing seats on buses and trains myself.

ImDave

dogmatix wrote: »

I suppose rear facing seats would be safer - did'nt a few jets in the 60's experiment with this, albiet briefly? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the early Tridents or VC10's had rear facing seats. But could be wrong. And don't military transports have rear facing seats for troop carrying?

I'm sure it would be safer - but passengers would hate them. I always avoid rear facing seats on buses and trains myself.

Ya I've read about this all right. Apparently a number of studies have proved that aft facing seats can be upto seven times safer than front facing. It only makes scence, as the seat will dispiate the energy from a frontal impact. Dont see this happening any time in the near future however...

IRLConor

dogmatix wrote: »

I suppose rear facing seats would be safer - did'nt a few jets in the 60's experiment with this, albiet briefly? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the early Tridents or VC10's had rear facing seats. But could be wrong. And don't military transports have rear facing seats for troop carrying?

The RAF had their VC-10s equipped with rear-facing seats. I don't know if any civilian aircraft were outfitted like that.

dogmatix wrote: »

I'm sure it would be safer - but passengers would hate them. I always avoid rear facing seats on buses and trains myself.

I don't really understand the dislike of rear-facing seats by so many people. Other than when accelerating and decelerating there's no real difference. I usually go for the rear facing seats.

IRLConor

EI-DAV wrote: »

Ya I've read about this all right. Apparently a number of studies have proved that aft facing seats can be upto seven times safer than front facing.

The only catch being that all the unsecured objects in the cabin fly towards you! :eek:

Davidth88

The only catch being that all the unsecured objects in the cabin fly towards you!

Interestingly this was actually in the AAIB report for the Kegworth report , they recommended the CAA look at forward facing seats , but actually the main thing that hurt/killed people was the collapse of the floor , and they thought forward facing seats may be worse in that case.

They reckoned the safest seats were the ones over the wing spars , so my request of seat 13 A/ F on the Aer Lingus A320's now looks even better !

IRLConor

Davidth88 wrote: »

Interestingly this was actually in the AAIB report for the Kegworth report , they recommended the CAA look at forward facing seats , but actually the main thing that hurt/killed people was the collapse of the floor , and they thought forward facing seats may be worse in that case.

Yeah, it's difficult to see where the balance of safety would lie.

Davidth88 wrote: »

They reckoned the safest seats were the ones over the wing spars , so my request of seat 13 A/ F on the Aer Lingus A320's now looks even better !

Until you have an accident on takeoff and you find yourself sitting between two big bags of fuel!

Oilrig

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Cutting to the chase,airline seat belts are shag all use except in perhaps turbulence

+1

They deal with bumpy incidents, the energy involved in "crashes" relegates seat belts to non relevant status IMHO

derry

I got on a jet twin engined type737 family from one of the main carriers to Dublin
(which shall remain nameless as its a aircraft issue not a airline issue )
I got on Ok
I chose seat just behind wing window seat with access to emergency exit no seats in front for me and extra leg room

The plane was chock a block and full for heavily loaded tourists from Spain

I saw my case and and several wagons of golf bags unable to be loaded so plane was stuffed full and those bags got left behind and mine was delivered to my house the next day
My impression was the take off was unusually long very slow to accelerate as most 737 are gone like a scalded cat and flew with a more tail down tilt than was the norm all inferences of heavy weight but probably within safety margins but I suspect just

We landed Dublin what I took to look like a fairly good landing nose seemed to drop a tad to quick for the flare so made more a three point landing ( which is classed as best landing )but a bit bricky no bounce at all real thump sit down and then lot of rumbling like a fat dead duck as it seemed suspension was on the stoppers and then on came the airbrakes and reverse thrust which seemed to make the nose dip down a lot more than I ever seen before and it lasted a long time with lots of noise and the result was without a seat in front of me I was sort of hanging off the seat with my belt and then braking stooped turned off runway and then plane pulled in and we all bailed out

Noticed a twinge in the back as I waited to get off the plane thought late at night heat of Spain old age 40 year old crock
Noticed a twinge in the back on the way to costoms found no bag not surprised and caught the last CIE bus home
next day bad back
the next day even worse
I went to hospital and they cracked my back with some leg movement and that eased the pain and back improved rapidly from there on and two weeks later went back to work

Tried contacting the airline but they were made from UNOBTAINIUM

So I laid a flight safety investigation with the flight safety board of Ireland with my complaint against the aircraft type and seating system and belts and made it clear It was not a airline issue more the type of seat the seat belt and my suspicion the plane was a tad on the heavy side and
having read a previous article about a heavy landing in Dublin airport and where lots of injured passengers spent weeks to prove the accident ever happened with the airlines white wash I believed it was a hazard that airlines without instructions from air safety would not seek to solve and not seek to investigate

Internet results since then shows this is a classic back injury from crappy belts well known problem for donkey years and airliners which are not safety authorities chose to bury the problem and only the air safety authorities can strive to do anything about this issue

It was needless to say too late for getting all the facts proven but since then I noticed airlines using that 737 plane or very similar 2 engined airbus don't generally issue that type of seat with no support to lean against in front of you and only seems to be used when plane is chock a block full

Also heavy planes must land faster and 737 types and smaller two engined Airbuses are one of the fastest planes for landing and bigger planes seem to land slower from what info I obtained

Budget airlines best I can tell often carry more cargo to cover costs and often cargo costs pay 80% the cost of the flight so the incentive to stuff lots of cargo in with passengers is high and helps keep the passenger ticket costs down

Since then about 2002 I noticed the airports have taken to setting up random speed traps on landing aircraft both Ireland and abroad and interrogate planes landing unusually fast as that indicates more risk to passengers with higher g forces and possible overloading issues

It would seem to me the air safety authorities are very pro active to make flight safety a top issue

Airlines vary in commitment according to financial pressures and culture and other factors but to some extent what they don't want is the hole in the ground but dicky backs are not always high on the list of priorities and I suppose they often get false complaints to have to sort out


So for me its simple if a aircraft type hurts you don't let the airliner steer you away from lodging a complaint with the air safety authority
Air safety authority from governments cant start to cure issues without statistical data and facts to work with and even if they cant prove it as in my case they can start to know what to look for
If you accept the airlines solutions whatever that is and you do not register the event with air safety there exists the possibility the incident will fall between the cracks

So for me minor injured but probably no other passengers suffered problems they can issue safety notices that certain conditions in certain seats might be more risky and issue those seats to flight crew trained for the issues or advise suitable passenger that leaning back on landing would greatly reduce the risks as was inclined to lean forward to look out the window which if a seat was ahead of me would have stopped me moving forward

Also since then the air safety authorities are setting up speed traps at runways to see what going on
The speed traps help ensure planes keep weight down and land slower and reduce risks
If a plane lands very fast this indicates a possible serious issue to be checked into as to the reasons why
So as a avid enthusiast of plane safety and flying I am sure they are chipping away at the problems to help reduce the risks from lap type seat belts and who knows maybe the future will be able to the belts changed to something better

Having crashed in cars once at 90 mph and motor bikes the aeroplane and its crappy seat belts is still super safe compared to the injuries I got from car crashes wearing full eat belts

Forget trying to get compo of the airlines I couldn't find a single lawyer in Ireland that had the balls to tackle the case as all the airlines have big guns big lawyers and big manufactures to fight you with and Irish lawyers are not worth a crapper if a aircraft hurts you and best I can tell the rest of Europe is just as bad so you on your own

If the plane hurt you make sure even it a very minor thing to be taken off on a Dublin fire brigade stretcher or a state hospital service like London city ambulance or French Paris pompiers and not the private company from the airport ambulance service as they will deny the incident ever took place as thats what they seem to do
"what passenger on what stretcher never , you must be dreaming what records sure they that lot don't do the contract anymore gone bust all the files are lost never happened lifes is a bitch "
or you will not get compo as the airlines all the mother f***er lot of them will pull any trick to get out of compo
And especially don't let the airlines supply you with their free doctor or he will try to prove the broken back is only a minor back pain II mean it a no brainer his boss is the airline not you
and that applies world wide

how do I know some of this stuff
After my accident I went online a lot and know people who travel a lot more than me

An example is my brother lived in JoBerg South Africa and flew a lot from Capetown to Joberg and back and got to find out about the tankering problem

Fuel in Capetown was much cheaper than Joberg
Planes would carry extra fuel land extra heavy in Joberg (within manufactures maximum recommended weight limits but JUST... )and not fuel up and return to Capetown and refuel there and this is called tankering in the trade

Where that works sort of in some parts of the world it was not working well in JoBerg as the airport was at a high altitude 6000 feet and the less air thinner made planes land a lot faster at the best of times
However extra made them land at way way faster over the top speeds instead of 120mph often 180mph plus and this often meant serious pull out all the brake stops and often hard landing and lots of burnt rubber landing


Some planes in joberg airport could regularly have several passengers taken off with a stretcher and then later the airport stretcher company suddenly changed name every week to another company and the proof the stretcher incident ever happened disappeared poof
pop goes the weasel to late

It took years to stop the airlines doing this barbaric practice and only passengers numbers dropping off in vast numbers from rumour machine of cripple making airliners meant the airlines had to stop this on such a large scale as they risked no trade at all

Most airlines world wide don't have good insurance policies so even you win the case the most they pay out is $50,000 except thats it is a big crash lots of dead people they pay out from their own pockets extra to quieten the bad publicity but if its one twot forget it they only pay what the minimum they must pay

Last I saw Flying in the EU imposed a extra insurance cost on airlines so compo in incidents inside EU region will be far better but man the last I saw EU airlines are still fighting that extra cost

Ask the passenger who not strapped in as per long flight got his back broken when the plane hit air pocket over the Himilaias mountians on a British flight

All he got was $50,000 the maxuim payout because he the only one hurt and they could f*** him over as he was the only bad victim


Derry

Chiron

I'll have whatever he's having ^................

pclancy

Lol @ ^

Derry...a few points

Never heard of airport "speedtraps" before, wouldn't that negate radar?? Why would their be speedlimits imposed by the airport on landing anyway? Perhaps the cops have found yet another way to make money and can be seen hiding behind the ILS.

Every plane lands at a different speed calculated according to its weight at touchdown, Small single engine Cessna 50-60kts, 737s anywhere between 109 and 160 knots, size doesn't matter even a 747 could safely land as slow as 120 or so. Aircraft being controlled by the tower are separated into manageable and safe distances as they approach the airport and generally fly at the same speed to maintain that separation so pilots arent able to "speed". Landing too fast or too heavy does happen but the results are generally a lot more noticeable and it wouldnt be treated as a normal landing by the airline.

I do know what you mean about the seats in the emergency row, a few times on very full EI flights to London I've noticed the sensation of floating during the landing roll but its simply more pronounced because you've more room to see ahead of you.

I'd be a bit amazed to see overloaded planes landing often. An overloaded plane wouldn't be let get off the ground by its dispatcher or pilot, each aircraft has a MTOW or Max Take Off Weight. Once loaded with pax, cargo and fuel the total weight must fall below this or it wouldn't be allowed leave! You'd be sure that after a flight from Spain it would be well under its max landing weight after burning considerable amounts of fuel during the journey.

Seatbelts suck, we know that and they're design is obviously flawed but considering they're only real use is to keep you in your seat during turbulence or bad weather conditions its the best we can hope for unless something drastic changes in flight safety.

BTW i'm sorry you hurt your back that time but some of the stuff you said just seemed to need clarification.

derry

pclancy

Never heard of airport "speedtraps" before, wouldn't that negate radar?? Why would their be speedlimits imposed by the airport on landing anyway? Perhaps the cops have found yet another way to make money and can be seen hiding behind the ILS.

me neither but a year ago the news reported one well known budget airline was reprimanded at a UK airport for regular high speed landing with their 737 fleet
I assume they can reprimand them based on some form of speed trap equipment
The budget airlines nowadays have many commercial reasons to be pushing speed envelopes in flight take off landing and turn around times
The MD of the Budget airline after this public reprimand said he would reprimand these jet jockey pilots
So somebody somewhere is being pro active in ensuring there wont be stretcher cases coming of rapidly decelerating planes from the g forces

pclancy


Every plane lands at a different speed calculated according to its weight at touchdown, Small single engine Cessna 50-60kts, 737s anywhere between 109 and 160 knots, size doesn't matter even a 747 could safely land as slow as 120 or so. Aircraft being controlled by the tower are separated into manageable and safe distances as they approach the airport and generally fly at the same speed to maintain that separation so pilots arent able to "speed".

Yes I am aware that planes all land at different speeds but there exists lots of issues such as after landing the passengers go from 160knots to 30 knots in seconds and if the plane lands on short runway or far down the runway the requirement to brake faster than normal can result in much more G forces

pclancy
Landing too fast or too heavy does happen but the results are generally a lot more noticeable and it wouldnt be treated as a normal landing by the airline.

exactly my point
If a plane makes a horrific accidental hard landing which damages the aircraft a well oiled machine will go into place to hide the event from the safety authorities

Having two weeks to with no work I surfed the net and found lots of cases where he incidents were all covered up



Now the case below is a clasic case

full crash investigation report supplied below

dirty big airbus A310-300 nearly as big a 747 plane makes a terrible landing at shannon airport ireland 1998 and seriously bends the front wheel assembly
Plane then sneaks into a hanger and send passengers of in another plane and do all possible tricks and stunts to hide how bad the damage to plane is
When they get caught the next day the passenger some for all we know may have been injured but whip lash damage can sometimes take days to show were now 2000 miles away and the safety authorizes cant verify how much problems this issue caused to passengers

The whole planes front is so damaged it has to fly 1000 miles empty to France to be fixed with the front wheel down in flight as it was to bent to retract

Only buy chance did a mechanic spot the bent plane nose gear called the air safety and they got to the black box before it was wiped out from the 24 hour rewrite program and from that they could see the full story on G force and various parameters that caused this event

This is a classic case of how well greased is the airlines solution to covering up these problems
Yes airlines have bad landing but lots of them world wide have lots of ways to hide these accidents from the safety authorities and then even if they get caught often they cant be sued for as much money as you would receive from a local bus or train company that did the same injuries

full crash investigation report

http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=3964&lang=ENG&loc=1280

http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/3964-0.pdf

extract of the sailent points for those that dont want to read all the report

from www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/3964-0.pdf

Between 60 ft and the ground the rate of descent was approximately 500 ft/minute. Engine power was increased from 56 % to 62% N1. The flare was initiated at an altitude of about 18 ft. as indicated by a change in elevator deflection. During the flare the pitch increased from 2.5 to 5.5. Just before touch down, the aircraft rolled 5 left. This was countered by a right aileron input, which resulted in a 3 right wing down attitude. 4 of left rudder were also applied at about the point of touchdown. The aircraft touched on at 4.5 pitch, at 146 kts (Vref +10) initially on the right main leg with 3 right roll and 58% N1. A vertical load factor of 1.9 G and lateral load factor of 0.32 (sideslip to the right) was recorded during the touch down.
2
The aircraft then bounced on both main wheels. The ground spoilers, which had opened on the initial touchdown, retracted. While airborne during this bounce the throttles were briefly advanced and an elevator input of 9 nose down was made. The aircraft pitch angle decreased from 5.5 at a rate of 6/sec. The aircraft then landed on the nose wheel, with a nose pitch-down rate still of 6/sec., and an aircraft pitch angle of 3 to 4 nose-down. A vertical load of 1.65 G and lateral load of 0.195 G was recorded at this point. The main gear then came into ground contact and a vertical acceleration of 1.36 G was recorded.
At this point the ground spoilers deployed, the pitch attitude increased to 2.5, an elevator nose down input of 11 was made and the aircraft bounced again. During in this second bounce, it is probable that the main undercarriage reached full extension of the shock absorbers and that the aircraft did not become airborne again. However due to the pitch attitude of 2.5, the nose wheel was airborne. The aircraft then “landed” again and a vertical load of 1.5 G was recorded. An elevator nose down input of 14 was made during this bounce and the nose wheel made ground contact again, recording 1.2G.
With all three undercarriage legs on the ground, thrust reversers were selected and the aircraft stopped normally. During the rollout the crew reported to ATC that they experienced wind shear at touchdown.
The aircraft then cleared the runway. As the aircraft approached the stand, the crew had a further discussion with ATC and stated that they experienced a variable head wind of 47 kts at touchdown.
At 19.50 hrs, the staff of the company that was responsible for handling the aircraft at Shannon reported to Shannon ATC that the aircraft would be overnighting due to a damaged nose wheel. This was the only communication concerning possible damage on heavy landing, received by ATC. Shannon ATC then informed the AAIU that the aircraft was overnighting due to a damaged nose wheel.

Now the MTOW issue I cant speak about as I never worked on that sector
What I do know I saw the stuff that looked like it didn't make it onto the plane and that was mostly golf bags which are a heavy item

My suitcases I can promise you was a lot more than 20KGs but the weight wasn't measured best I can tell as I would have been throwing a lot of bottles of wine down the airport toilet to get weight back down if they asked me to pay extra

I saw the stuff which came off at the Dublin end saw the large queue of persons who also didn't get their luggage like me and it looked like the plane was stuffed as half the stuff some of it was something big oversize heavy bulky stuff in big canvas cases which wasn't claimed seemed to be more like a cargo but I cant swear blind it was from my flight

Then I tried to see if the plane was candidate for Tankering from Spain but that drew a unlikely result as the costs of transporting extra fuel would be negated over a three hour flight from extra fuel burned

But I did detect that the Irish safety civil service guy who looked into the issue was a bit taken aback at the resistance he encountered from the airline concerned and due to time lapsing of three days and so forth couldn't proceed to check my case any further

When I went to the lawyer they said If the dublin Fire brigade removed me from the plane on a stretcher i might have a case but the fact I walked off the plane and the issues where the airlines have got good lawyers it was get lost they don't want to know



If the airlines do ever pay out for something they also nearly always include a gag order with the payment so the victims who do after a court case often settling for less outside of court cant speak up and say what happened to them

I do know that seat belts are a good idea to wear all the flight which si what i do as one 747 flying Joberg to Europe over Ziare hit a air pocket and lots of passengers not strapped in were severely injured I think one was even killed
the plane decided to return to Joberg a two hour return flight as hospitals in the rest of Africa were too primitive to use

They say the plane was like a war zone with blood splattered all over the plane and fleets of ambulances to convey the victims to hospital

But I bet you if any passengers were wearing belts and sustained injuries from the bad belt design that information was suppressed and buried in gag order payments and misinformation and counter claims of injury from flying objects

For my Ireland Spain flight details of seat

The seat arrangement was I wanted a window seat not over the wing
There was three seats behind two seats ( which remained empty ) and I sat in the third seat starboard side beside window.
In front was no seat in front of me as my seat was beside emergency exit and to my left there was two seats in front of me so extra leg room
This means I would not have a seat in front of me to use to brace against if the plane was in a severe braking mode and therefore I would be subjected to extra loads across my lap as my body would resist the forward motion and be inclined to lift upwards if I braced using the arm rests which is the classic formula to strain the back with a lap type belt as per thousands of reported injuries

I have done a lot of flights since and can best as I can tell as its all subjective and have not not been subjected to as severe a braking G force as the flight that seems to have injured me as in the planes nose has never dipped down so severely and kept the brakes on for the same long periods as that flight which leaves me suspicious the plane was very heavy and required all the stops to be pulled out to slow down and the suspension was on the stoppers as the rumbling was unusually rough

So guys and gals out there when you fly your on your own and it doesn't matter which airline seems to me they all the same

derry

Biro

Rear facing seats are the answer, but passengers wouldn't like them. Any given airline won't fit them either as they'd be afraid no one would fly with them on account of not wanting to be sitting facing the rear. I'd reckon they'd be right. They either all need to change, or none of them ever will.

derry

Biro wrote: »

Rear facing seats are the answer, but passengers wouldn't like them. Any given airline won't fit them either as they'd be afraid no one would fly with them on account of not wanting to be sitting facing the rear. I'd reckon they'd be right. They either all need to change, or none of them ever will.

I have no ideas which is better or worse forward facing seats or rear facing

Amusement places with loop the loop joy rides subjecting customers to all sorts of extreme loads hanging upside down whatever can often use a gizzmo that fits over your shoulders

It does require all the airlines to change but they cant change even if they wanted to until safety design is tested and proved and approved

Thee airlines at the coal face of the problem have opted to follow the insurance companies directive and bury the known problems
The airline manufactures are not transporting people they leave that to airlines and rely on feed back to implement new seat belt solutions
no feed back no need for solutions
Its the classic story pass the buck and because the airlines are often breathing fumes in chapter 11 seat belts don't rate high on the radar of airlines issues to sort out

Derry

Tenger

Davidth88 wrote: »

Anyway , I have formed a strange habit recently of tightening my s/belt on landing and take off ... no idea why , just started doing it about a year ago.

Good idea as the recent BA incident shows.

The main thoughts here are on the effectiveness of airline seatbelt. Airlines/aircraft manufacturers have to balance safety,economics and practicalities. A 4 point harness as worn by cabin crew would give more protection to pax. However if not properly worn this harness has a greater chance of causing injury to the wearer in a Hard or Emergency landing. Note that the majority of crew seats are aft-facing as this postion is safer in such a landing. Also crew have different positions to adopt for rear and aft facing seats. As said above the 'brace' position is not 100% safe. However it isn't supposed to be. It is the 'least risk' position rather than a safety position. It also assumes the aircraft will remain level and mostly intact during impact rather than flipping and/or cartwheeling.

Now its hard enough getting people to wear the lap belts and remained seated normally. Just think of the impossibility of monitoring correct usage of the 4-point harnesses.These must be worn very tightly to function correctly.

They did try rear facing seats,I think it was the British in the 60's and passengers hated them. Just think of the old 'back to the engine' thing on trains.

Not sure who mentioned the idea of overwing seats being safer. They are no seats safer or more dangerous than others. The wing box area is the more stable in flight however and in theory it is stronger structurally. The close location of emergency exits also helps if you survive the impact(and get out before the fuel fire fills the cabin with dense,heavy black smoke)But I would never want to rely on my seat postion to save me in an impact.

In terms of fast landings and hard braking. FR has been rebuked over this as its pilots try to expedite quicker ground movements. M'oL stated he would punish pilots caught doing this but at the same time pilots who are late get question by FR.

FlutterinBantam

derry wrote: »

I got on a jet twin engined type737 family from one of the main carriers to Dublin
(which shall remain nameless as its a aircraft issue not a airline issue )
I got on Ok
I chose seat just behind wing window seat with access to emergency exit no seats in front for me and extra leg room

The plane was chock a block and full for heavily loaded tourists from Spain

I saw my case and and several wagons of golf bags unable to be loaded so plane was stuffed full and those bags got left behind and mine was delivered to my house the next day

derry wrote:

My impression was the take off was unusually long very slow to accelerate as most 737 are gone like a scalded cat and flew with a more tail down tilt than was the norm all inferences of heavy weight but probably within safety margins but I suspect just

it was either ok or it wasn't

We landed Dublin what I took to look like a fairly good landing nose seemed to drop a tad to quick for the flare so made more a three point landing ( which is classed as best landing )but a bit bricky no bounce at all real thump sit down and then lot of rumbling like a fat dead duck as it seemed suspension was on the stoppers and then on came the airbrakes and reverse thrust which seemed to make the nose dip down a lot more than I ever seen before and it lasted a long time with lots of noise and the result was without a seat in front of me I was sort of hanging off the seat with my belt and then braking stooped turned off runway and then plane pulled in and we all bailed out

Noticed a twinge in the back as I waited to get off the plane thought late at night heat of Spain old age 40 year old crock
Noticed a twinge in the back on the way to costoms found no bag not surprised and caught the last CIE bus home
next day bad back
the next day even worse
I went to hospital and they cracked my back with some leg movement and that eased the pain and back improved rapidly from there on and two weeks later went back to work

Tried contacting the airline but they were made from UNOBTAINIUM

So I laid a flight safety investigation with the flight safety board of Ireland with my complaint against the aircraft type and seating system and belts and made it clear It was not a airline issue more the type of seat the seat belt and my suspicion the plane was a tad on the heavy side and
having read a previous article about a heavy landing in Dublin airport and where lots of injured passengers spent weeks to prove the accident ever happened with the airlines white wash I believed it was a hazard that airlines without instructions from air safety would not seek to solve and not seek to investigate

Internet results since then shows this is a classic back injury from crappy belts well known problem for donkey years and airliners which are not safety authorities chose to bury the problem and only the air safety authorities can strive to do anything about this issue

It was needless to say too late for getting all the facts proven but since then I noticed airlines using that 737 plane or very similar 2 engined airbus don't generally issue that type of seat with no support to lean against in front of you and only seems to be used when plane is chock a block full

Also heavy planes must land faster and 737 types and smaller two engined Airbuses are one of the fastest planes for landing and bigger planes seem to land slower from what info I obtained

derry wrote:

Budget airlines best I can tell often carry more cargo to cover costs and often cargo costs pay 80% the cost of the flight so the incentive to stuff lots of cargo in with passengers is high and helps keep the passenger ticket costs down

Quite the opposite I would suggest

Since then about 2002 I noticed the airports have taken to setting up random speed traps on landing aircraft both Ireland and abroad and interrogate planes landing unusually fast as that indicates more risk to passengers with higher g forces and possible overloading issues

It would seem to me the air safety authorities are very pro active to make flight safety a top issue

Airlines vary in commitment according to financial pressures and culture and other factors but to some extent what they don't want is the hole in the ground but dicky backs are not always high on the list of priorities and I suppose they often get false complaints to have to sort out


So for me its simple if a aircraft type hurts you don't let the airliner steer you away from lodging a complaint with the air safety authority
Air safety authority from governments cant start to cure issues without statistical data and facts to work with and even if they cant prove it as in my case they can start to know what to look for
If you accept the airlines solutions whatever that is and you do not register the event with air safety there exists the possibility the incident will fall between the cracks

So for me minor injured but probably no other passengers suffered problems they can issue safety notices that certain conditions in certain seats might be more risky and issue those seats to flight crew trained for the issues or advise suitable passenger that leaning back on landing would greatly reduce the risks as was inclined to lean forward to look out the window which if a seat was ahead of me would have stopped me moving forward

Also since then the air safety authorities are setting up speed traps at runways to see what going on
The speed traps help ensure planes keep weight down and land slower and reduce risks
If a plane lands very fast this indicates a possible serious issue to be checked into as to the reasons why
So as a avid enthusiast of plane safety and flying I am sure they are chipping away at the problems to help reduce the risks from lap type seat belts and who knows maybe the future will be able to the belts changed to something better

Having crashed in cars once at 90 mph and motor bikes the aeroplane and its crappy seat belts is still super safe compared to the injuries I got from car crashes wearing full eat belts

Forget trying to get compo of the airlines I couldn't find a single lawyer in Ireland that had the balls to tackle the case as all the airlines have big guns big lawyers and big manufactures to fight you with and Irish lawyers are not worth a crapper if a aircraft hurts you and best I can tell the rest of Europe is just as bad so you on your own

If the plane hurt you make sure even it a very minor thing to be taken off on a Dublin fire brigade stretcher or a state hospital service like London city ambulance or French Paris pompiers and not the private company from the airport ambulance service as they will deny the incident ever took place as thats what they seem to do
"what passenger on what stretcher never , you must be dreaming what records sure they that lot don't do the contract anymore gone bust all the files are lost never happened lifes is a bitch "
or you will not get compo as the airlines all the mother f***er lot of them will pull any trick to get out of compo
And especially don't let the airlines supply you with their free doctor or he will try to prove the broken back is only a minor back pain II mean it a no brainer his boss is the airline not you
and that applies world wide

how do I know some of this stuff
After my accident I went online a lot and know people who travel a lot more than me

An example is my brother lived in JoBerg South Africa and flew a lot from Capetown to Joberg and back and got to find out about the tankering problem

Fuel in Capetown was much cheaper than Joberg
Planes would carry extra fuel land extra heavy in Joberg (within manufactures maximum recommended weight limits but JUST... )and not fuel up and return to Capetown and refuel there and this is called tankering in the trade

Where that works sort of in some parts of the world it was not working well in JoBerg as the airport was at a high altitude 6000 feet and the less air thinner made planes land a lot faster at the best of times
However extra made them land at way way faster over the top speeds instead of 120mph often 180mph plus and this often meant serious pull out all the brake stops and often hard landing and lots of burnt rubber landing


Some planes in joberg airport could regularly have several passengers taken off with a stretcher and then later the airport stretcher company suddenly changed name every week to another company and the proof the stretcher incident ever happened disappeared poof
pop goes the weasel to late

It took years to stop the airlines doing this barbaric practice and only passengers numbers dropping off in vast numbers from rumour machine of cripple making airliners meant the airlines had to stop this on such a large scale as they risked no trade at all

Most airlines world wide don't have good insurance policies so even you win the case the most they pay out is $50,000 except thats it is a big crash lots of dead people they pay out from their own pockets extra to quieten the bad publicity but if its one twot forget it they only pay what the minimum they must pay

Last I saw Flying in the EU imposed a extra insurance cost on airlines so compo in incidents inside EU region will be far better but man the last I saw EU airlines are still fighting that extra cost

Ask the passenger who not strapped in as per long flight got his back broken when the plane hit air pocket over the Himilaias mountians on a British flight

All he got was $50,000 the maxuim payout because he the only one hurt and they could f*** him over as he was the only bad victim


Derry


Derry My only comment would be a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

derry

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Derry My only comment would be a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

So tell me then what I am sopposed to do while sitting around bored with a bad back for two weeks

I went on line merely to find similar cases so as to start the normal process on recouperting the lost income from this incident

Being a mild aviation enthusiast 2 hours clocked up over 20 years I knew a few bits and bobs about light aircraft aviation but hadn't got much of a clue about big planes except strap in and enjoy the ride and if anything goes wrong it curtains

Then I have this episode and assume its a straight forward claim procedure only to find out forget it

So looking into the whole story you find out all sorts of thing like the no smoking policy from aircraft planes means less air circulating and considerably greater risks to catch serious nasty things like TB which will knock you of work for months and lots of victims are taking class action suits against airline companies who steadfastly refuse to improve air circulation which is proven to reduce airborne infection transmissions

So apart from the repeated request from the Medical world to stop using belts which are proven to cause unnecessary back injuries in high G force braking events especially runway overrun incidents and things like Air circulation and other issues

The only thing Airlines and Airline manufactures react to pressure from various sectors such as air safety mandates air safety pressure movements and similar

But if your worried to fly then don't catch a ship and run the risk of infection from seagull dropping on your head

Derry

yaeger

Perphaps research a little more. As your words sound as comical as some of our roving reporters cringe factor conclusions on air events.
I know the points your trying to make, but really some of the descriptions are very far fetched. Really do you think pilots operate just on the line with weights and fly equipment with 'suspension on the stoppers" :eek:
Unfortunately as you probably have seen the aviation industry worldwide operates on a term known as "tomestone economies" ..self explanatory really.

In relation to kegworth accident, Seatbelts kept them strapped in but not alot of people took the brace position............a large majority of the people were de-capitated due to loose objects/baggage etc....if you had shoulder harnesses this would keep passengers upright and as such you would have more incidents of head / back / neck injuries or worse, for cabin and flight crew the shoulder harness and even 5point harness is crucial for operational reasons.

The Seatbelts are a safety measure and do aid in many incidents,,,but they are limited in major crash as is your car seat belt. The seat belt can cause injury, but compared to what may have been caused without the belt your best to minimise as best you can.

Speed traps.........i love it ! So captain, Is this your VEE HICLE ? do you know what speed you were doing? Would that be IAS/CAS/TAS sergent?

pclancy

Images of a garda on a stepladder looking for tax and insurance spring to mind

derry

yaeger wrote: »

Perphaps research a little more. As your words sound as comical as some of our roving reporters cringe factor conclusions on air events.
I know the points your trying to make, but really some of the descriptions are very far fetched. Really do you think pilots operate just on the line with weights and fly equipment with 'suspension on the stoppers" :eek:

...snip...

Speed traps.........i love it ! So captain, Is this your VEE HICLE ? do you know what speed you were doing? Would that be IAS/CAS/TAS sergent?

this is just quick google search on hard lansding and what pops up

http://www.videospider.tv/Videos/Detail/1367573097.aspx

so others are there are spotting a trend so do you want to refer to them as roving reporters

I an just your average run of the mill joe soap who when I get on a bus or train or plane if its hurts me I wish to to be compensated for the earning loses
and ensure whatever triggered the problem can be resolved

Since the incident i haven done much except go on to a few aviation to see whats news exists out there and do some more flight for holidays business whatever

I still generally chose the behind wing seating beside windows on all types of planes mostly Airbus twin engined types to see is there any details I can see that I missed

But I am not bothering to go to much out of way about it as I certianly am not in the Aviation trade

You can try to rubbish my efforts but they are just run of the mill joe soaps attempts to see if there is any solution which can resolve this issue

In the above film the guy complains about the unexpected force of the landing
Possibly passengers in the mid section are subjected to more direct impact forces than seats in the front and back of the plane where fuselage flex might absorb the sudden jolts better

So possibly passenger in those seats require a different seat belt or more shock absorbing seats than rear and front seats

But when you try to find out is there any consistent thread to passenger hard landing industries you find the problem is covered up with a world wide cover up of which Ireland is knee deep in it as their insurance companies are the same as everybody else's so they have no choice presently except to tow the world wide insurance theme cover up with gag orders all incidents where possible

Now when any passenger gets on a plane me or any other they would wish that all reasonable most likely risks are attended to such as ensuring suffient air is pumped around more frequently so passengers with TB ten rows back are not going to infect them
They would also like not to receive food and drinks which would endanger them
They would like to be sure that if the plane made a hard landing that automatically a suitable independent government medical team would check all passengers for any possible injuries

Then if a pattern of consistent injuries were detected newwer better solutions would be implemented

At the moment if the plane makes a hard landing the system is geared only yo cover up the whole incident as quickly as possible

I didn't set out out be injured
I didn't set out to look into the innards of the Passenger aviation Industry

I didnt expect to find such a well oiled cover up machine

I shall leave you with this vidio which for me is as relevant as saying
kegworth accident which i wont bother to google if you cant be bothered to supply the relevant crash report details

This video is where if you want to go radar speed check the local airline you would as a private joe soap have the possibility to while getting a nice sun tan and even put blue lights on top of your car if you want to be wanna be comedian


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChYD_mElt4

I know where I am saving up to go for a sunny holiday beach where I can enjoy the free sun tan oil from the kerosene unburnt fumes and get in the face rush affect with those beasts aiming at you


Derry

yaeger

Others are spotting a trend !.....yes i will refer to them as roving reporters.
Its a typical case of people who think they something about nothing !
The Average holiday goer who flies once a year and on that day all of a sudden becomes an expect in landings and take offs and general operations! Derry really these people havent a clue.

I wonder on that madrid flight did they tow the aircraft in to a hidden hangar and repair the bent wheels or did they just load on another load of passengers and throw caution to the wind and head back to make yet another crater in dublins runway. Did the oxygen masks fall out of the ceiling on any of these landings? what you class as hard and what the industry class as safe and within limits are two different things, You may try and address the industries limits but to be honest you are onto a a complete no brainer. Controlling the hardness or softness of a landing i am afraid is down to the pilot on the day and their interpretation of what landing is required in given conditions noteing all factors....weather/runway/aircraft etc etc etc

Fact of life aircraft will land hard, the performance of airlines and operations is one of the most highly regulated industries in the world.
Some times their will be an extraordinary landing which may be absolutely unsafe or cause injury, now you have an incident or accident but until that happens its your word and dickie back against an extremely regulated industry.
Derry V airline...... I have a soar back after landing today,,,,airline pulls G-reading on landing aircraft and notes its in limits..... Case closed !
Outside limits, then there would be certainly more then one person complaining and no doubt fire services involved.

Would you be surprised to know a firm landing is a good landing and a smooth landing in given circumstances is not nescessarily a good or safe landing. Scratching your head yet ?

Regards Kegworth, that wasnt for you but rather a general point as it was mentioned earlier.

A Well oiled cover up machine..........I am afraid you couldnt be further from the truth. Your opinion is pure speculative and unfounded !
A well oiled extremely safe operation it is !

derry

yaeger wrote:

Others are spotting a trend !.....yes i will refer to ....them as roving reporters.
Its a typical case of people who think they something about nothing !

???? what are you smoking ???
The film was taken at random and the guy probably only intended to film a routine landing the comments he was surprised at the bumpy quality of the landing but he didn't claim him or any other passengers were injured

I especially chose this example to see would you class this as a roving reporter

yaeger wrote:

The Average holiday goer who flies once a year and on that day all of a sudden becomes an expect in landings and take offs and general operations!

The average joe soap flyer is mostly luckily to be involved in the normal routine takeoff and landing where G forces are kept to the minimum and doesn't sustain an injury so pays no more attention to the events

yaeger wrote:

Derry really these people havent a clue.

I get on buses trains planes and generally didn't have much of a clue and didn't check much into them until I was involved in a incident
Passengers are fragile cargo that don't need to have a clue to be transported

but of course if that clueless status can be abused then they might have to become clued in Via all the media outlets that produce information on the subject like Monday cars http://books.google.ie/books?id=VSsNQYnL09gC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=+Monday+cars&source=web&ots=YsjZEH-UTQ&sig=JLOBZ2bZ8q4UTsA87byopHNCp_Y&hl=en
or "Air Travel: How Safe Is It?"
http://books.google.ie/books?id=1bLqGwAACAAJ&dq=how+safe+is+the+aircraft+travel

I suspect more people buy these types books because armed with more facts they can protect them selfs better from cowboy car manufactures and Airline operators

Why do I get the impression you are one of those that is in the Airline industry deeply or on the fringes with a low tolerance to any passenger complainer agenda

yaeger wrote:

I wonder on that madrid flight did they tow the aircraft in to a hidden hangar and repair the bent wheels or did they just load on another load of passengers and throw caution to the wind and head back to make yet another crater in dublins runway.

???? again what are you smoking ???
The examples I will chose to show you of where planes are damaged will have suitable crash reports of which you have seen one if you bothered to read it
and I promise you I have a lot more from around the planet where the planes were damaged and passengers were injured but I didnt want to clutter up the page on the examples but if your in dought go to the like of NTSB (Nation transport safety board ) in the USA and search there just for the USA incidents that are all on file or FAA (Federation of Avation Ass,) UK whatever

yaeger wrote:

Did the oxygen masks fall out of the ceiling on any of these landings? what you class as hard and what the industry class as safe and within limits are two different things,

Last I heard oxygen masks fall out when air pressure falls to low de-pressurization or pilot presses the release button to make them fall out
Also they are fairly light weight short of a spectacular smash up where the plane in slit apart why would the oxygen masks fall down

Every landing I do in a commercial airplane I have no information industry standard or otherwise it is good bad or indifferent so its like saying you are saying from now on I must carry my own G meter to measure the forces I was subjected to and then go verify were they within Industry standards

Or I could start a campaign to insist every plane that lands has its Black box tape removed and checked buy the air safety authorities and get them to verify the good bad or indifference landing

Or the air safety people with eneogh statistical information which was not buried with gag orders could implement a suitable solution that would be in the passengers interests instead of the airlines and commercial aircraft manufactures interests

yaeger wrote:

You may try and address the industries limits but to be honest you are onto a a complete no brainer.

Thats been the standard reply from the big aircraft manufactures that have to be dragged kicking and screaming into courts around the planet and made to change the faulty item in the planes usually after a major crash like

Occasionally bad publicity like a in your face incident like 911 will make them close a well known risk where one 747 in route to Kenya was nearly crashed from one single very strong crazy guy who got into the pilots copit and grabbed the controls for several minutes before being overpowered
All because the commercial manufactures didn't want to spend money on strong doors to protect pilots
After 911 all the doors got beefed up

yaeger wrote:

Controlling the hardness or softness of a landing i am afraid is down to the pilot on the day and their interpretation of what landing is required in given conditions noteing all factors....weather/runway/aircraft etc etc etc

That goes without saying its better to be landed under control rather circle for hours run out of fuel and make of runway landing
I have been on commuter planes flying from the canary island inter island flights which are 1/2 hour no luggage bus type flights and after major storms and plane is thrown all over the sky and the landing are spectacular but i wasn't injured
I landed several times very hard at Dublin airport in very bad conditions without injury
I crashed my car at 90mph plus through a sign post buried the pole through the engine and rolled it 10 times maybe even more before falling down a ravine of 15 feet and was only scratched but i was wearing my three point safety belt

I crashed my motor bike at 80 mph and looped the loop mid air several times then BAM landed and then slid down the road for a long distance and got a few scratches but I did have my helmet on

I have done a few fairly interesting landing on my hangliding courses and micro light courses and my few hours light aircraft courses but lucky non of the landing were to hard


I have fallen down several mountain slopes at night and tumbled down the hills in the dark of some Greek Island or Spanish outback mountain road while staggering back from some late night mountain top pub and picked up a few scratches and twisted legs or arms


But the issue here is not the pilot or the weather or a sudden air crash but a routine landing which appeared to be a tad hard and the braking forces seemed to be a tad stronger than normal and when I left the plane i started to gain a pain in the back so the question is what parameters of the operating mode or equipment of the plane or flight might have triggered this event and is it preventable which is not possible if the airlines continue to ignore the issues

But some of the forces in landing are quite interesting like sometimes the fall rate is similar to a parachutist some ~10 to 30MPH downwards in hard landing which the shock absorbers take up

Whip lash claims in court from cars with fender benders are often 10 to 20mph shunts so the plane landing at 160MpH and then on with the reverse thrusters and drop to 100mph in less than a few seconds puts the forces into proportion

So as you can see if I am complaining about one landing with my survivability experience in life and that was from a very quite off season Spanish holiday at the swimming pool then I suspect the damage happened with the plane landing

yaeger wrote:

Fact of life aircraft will land hard, the performance of airlines and operations is one of the most highly regulated industries in the world.

Well they don't have to supply a black box tape recording of each and every flight to be stored for any future incident possibilities for so once 24 hours passes the information is lost as the black box erases the information every 24 hours or so the Air Safety authority informed me

Even the airlines with newer planes and ground based Black box type direct download receiver equipment don't have to release the information as it is for company maintenance needs but some might release the info if requested but thats a new development what I saw on telly

The reality is that regulated as they were seriously regular blind drunk pilots who have flown planes for years and eventually when they crashed it transpired the regulations were not enforced

Now Airport have been forced to employ safety staff with breathalysers to check obviously drunk pilots because it was a regulation that wasn't being enforced for a long time buy the airlines and the flying public kicked up about it when it was exposed as a larger issue than the airlines wanted to admit

example

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/23/national/main515937.shtml

cbsnews.com wrote:

Hughes, 41, and Cloyd, 44, pleaded not guilty to charges of operating an aircraft under the influence and operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

Both pilots had blood-alcohol levels above Florida's legal limit of 0.08 after they were ordered to return to the gate, according to court records.

Regulations are only part of the story but if the culture is not safety orientated then a lot of safety processes can be over ruled and ignored until there is a incident

yaeger wrote:

Some times their will be an extraordinary landing which may be absolutely unsafe or cause injury, now you have an incident or accident but until that happens its your word and dickie back against an extremely regulated industry.

So you are strongly inferring the only purpose of this highly regulated industry is to avoid Liability for any injuries incurred on any hapless clueless passengers

yaeger wrote:

Derry V airline...... I have a soar back after landing today,,,,airline pulls G-reading on landing aircraft and notes its in limits..... Case closed !

That is a classic statement from a airline they are the judge and jury and you are squaat and they decide if you let them

No wrong the airline say the numbers they wish to see are within limits

The same evidence in the hands of the air safety authority body would not be interpreted as such as there are no limits imposed for humans within limits as the limits apply only to the aircraft and its components

It would be a medical doctor and human body specialists who would decide that the forces were within human limits

A independent doctor not from the airline might have a totally different opinion than the doctor employed by the airline who pass their opinions

and if the parties cant agree it goes to litigation

the more I Look your opinions the more I think you are for the airlines to sqaush passenger rights
because its straight of the airline policy scripts on cover ups

yaeger wrote:

Outside limits, then there would be certainly more then one person complaining and no doubt fire services involved.

So you again infer that if 200 passengers who are not complaining of an injury and only one person is injured then the injury cannot possibly exist

And that is exactly the opinion that suits the airline industry if a few twots clueless passengers are hurt its a statistical impossibility and cover it up blind them with science

yaeger wrote:

Would you be surprised to know a firm landing is a good landing and a smooth landing in given circumstances is not nescessarily a good or safe landing. Scratching your head yet ?

There is only one rule any landing where you walk away from it without a injury is a good landing even if it breaks the plane in the process

I really don't give a rats for the splitting hairs on the landing issue as in my case the more likely injury is caused after the plane landed fromm the rapid de-acceleration and the bad lap belt design which is well known to cause back injuries

snip...

yaeger wrote:

A Well oiled cover up machine..........I am afraid you couldnt be further from the truth. Your opinion is pure speculative and unfounded !
A well oiled extremely safe operation it is !

[/QUOTE]

I agree a well oiled safe from litigation machine that has ever been invented and should be a mandatory case study for every law school on how to ensure you can run a well oiled litigation dodging industry

yaeger wrote:

Your opinion is pure speculative and unfounded !

well listed below is lots and lots of links from different industries both aviation and surface transport over decades where they show the worst belt ever to cause back injuries ever invented is a lap belt in any mode of transport

So if you think it speculative go argue it with the multitude of authorities world wide that argue against using lap belt safety solutions and tell you what

why don't you agree to be a suitable guinea pig on a rocket sledge experiment where a airline seat is strapped onto it with a lap belt and it is subjected to rapid deceleration from 160MPH to 60mph in a few seconds and allow them to measure the forces on your back and then come back and say that

Its always easy for those who haven't experienced a problem to poo poo it especially if they have a agenda

Also included is some references to the danger to young children not strapped in sitting on laps of parents which I forgot about

I haven't even started on the huge cover up from the Airlines on deep vein thrombosis which maimed and killed thousands of patients

so the links and sometimes a snip from itt of the salient points

http://www.safetyforum.com/rslb/

Injuries caused by lap belts in airplane crashes have been reported since the early 1950s. Medical literature has cited injuries caused by lap belts in automobile crashes since 1956.

For years, auto manufacturers have known the potential hazards of lap only belts. A Swedish safety researcher wrote in 1961, almost four decades ago, that the lap belt "does not comply with minimum performance requirements because it does not maintain the occupant in an upright position, does not protect the head and thorax, and does not hold the vital parts of the body together within the car during an accident -
so it has not been considered a safety belt in Sweden."

http://www.newsomelaw.com/resources/legal-articles/seat-belt-failure

Lap-only seat belts cause injuries when an occupant's torso flexes over the belt, which provides pelvic restraint only, or when the belt rides over the bony structure of the pelvis transferring loads to the abdomen.
The most frequent injuries are to the lumbar spine causing paraplegia as well as abdominal injuries such as avulsions, hemorrhage, and rupture of the internal organs including the intestines, liver, pancreas, and spleen.
Head injuries are also common when occupants flex over the belt and strike interior components.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4D91138F934A35755C0A96E958260

These tapes were run in stop-motion to demonstrate the effect of a crash on 170-pound adults in airline seats, and on children in various types of safety seats and harnesses that have subsequently been disapproved for use on airlines. When the dummies flailed, struck the airline seat in front, slid down and out of a belt or flew right off the seat, the airline employees gasped. This was not something they had seen unless they had experienced extreme turbulence or been through a crash.

Discussing the anomaly that children under 2 are the only passengers not required by law to be restrained in seats for takeoff and landing, Van Gowdy, team coordinator of biodynamics research at the institute, told the class: ''Everybody sitting on that airplane should have an equivalent level of protection. If I could do one thing in my career, it would be to get children off the laps of adults during takeoff and landing.''

http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/2001/august/080501n1.htm

Aft-facing seats require stronger - and consequently heavier - seatbacks and floor attachments. As Southwest discovered through a cost analysis, the increase in weight would not only hurt fuel efficiency but also would force airlines to reduce the number of seats on their planes.

That expense is a major reason the FAA has not seriously considered forcing the industry toward aft-facing seats, Petrakis says.

"Cost-effectiveness is something you can't get away from," he says. "The bottom line is that there is an administrative process that government agencies are stuck with. If there are a lot of negative comments, we would be hard-pressed to issue a rule."

That means the FAA must determine how much a change would cost the industry and weigh it against human life.

For the purpose of comparison, the FAA considers a human life to be worth $2.2 million.

Petrakis says plane crashes are too rare to make the benefit - saving lives - cost-effective.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDB173EF93AA15755C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

The perception is borne out by the account of passengers on an American Airlines flight on Monday evening, when a DC-10 en route to New York from Los Angeles encountered unexpected turbulence, forcing the plane to divert to Chicago, where 17 people were taken to hospitals and prompting the new review.

"It was like something out of the movies," said Jack Hogan, a passenger, who had just left a lavatory in the back of the plane and said he saw everyone not seated hit the ceiling. "I was in the air thinking, this is not reality; this doesn't happen."

Safety belt loads formulas show the G forces which you can input you own numbers and see the results which would be the same forces fro example going from 160 to 130 in one second is the same as going from 30mph to zero MPH
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/carcr.html#cc1

It took years to prove the Airlines were totally aware of deep vein thrombosis and knew all about it but with the well oiled machine buried the facts until it was so overwhelming in the face that they had to put their hands up and join forces to reduce the risks
However thousands died while the airlines played ostrich head in the litigation evading game

So tell the thousands of hapless clueless families of passengers that popped their clogs from deep vein thrombosis that airlines are lily white angels

Also I have some information on brain swelling from rapid deceleration which I am also pursuing which is seriously aggravated from forward high G de-accelerations forces and can possibly explain some pilots mistakes

Possibly Safer to run the risk from seagull crap landing on your head until airlines start solving these totally solvable issues

Chow for now

derry

PS an amusing link more to do with suing airlines

http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/essentials/article710467.ece

http://consumerist.com/368589/woman-sues-american-airlines-over-masturbating-passenger


http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/3506175-1.html



http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/irate-airline-passengers-threaten-to-sue/20070814133609990001

http://www.airsafe.com/cabin/turb.htm