suitability of airline seat belts

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