Can aircraft occupant "average" weights be far behind?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can aircraft occupant "average" weights be far behind?
170 pounds really isn't representative for an occupant anymore - and someone is noticing:
Crash test dummies getting fatter to match American drivers - World - CBC News
Crash test dummies getting fatter to match American drivers - World - CBC News
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was already a contributing factor in a fatal crash about ten years ago, no idea if another update would be necessary, but one would suppose that the aviation authorities are now aware of the problem 
: Air Midwest Flight 5481 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
: Air Midwest Flight 5481 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
As with all engineering, the answer is not as simple as it looks. Just designing for heavier occupants may have other consequences. This is a subject I discussed in my years in airline seat design and scaling the seat to suit really heavy people can make it unsuitable for really light people. I noticed an example of this today in a UK AAIB report on an Extra crash in 2008 in which it was thought that the heavier occupant was protected from some injury by his seat cracking (hence absorbing energy) while the lighter occupant's seat did not crack and she suffered worse spinal injuries.
Only half a speed-brake
J-F: thank you for your input. While I am certainly no expert on the subject - and have no talent nor intetnion to become one - I come visit this site to broaden my views. Which you just did. 
Respectfully,
FD
Respectfully,
FD
Moderator
Like J-F, I spent quite some years with a seat OEM as a design and certification engineer.
Several thoughts -
(a) current standards involve dynamic testing which address a measure of the actual loads expected to be experienced in a survivable mishap
(b) at the end of the day, the design mass standards are just a reasonable (but not all-encompassing) yardstick against which to measure design and performance
(c) considering (a), if the loads much exceed the relevant Standards, the occupant is likely to be in a world of hurt regardless of his/her particular mass
Several thoughts -
(a) current standards involve dynamic testing which address a measure of the actual loads expected to be experienced in a survivable mishap
(b) at the end of the day, the design mass standards are just a reasonable (but not all-encompassing) yardstick against which to measure design and performance
(c) considering (a), if the loads much exceed the relevant Standards, the occupant is likely to be in a world of hurt regardless of his/her particular mass
