Nick & Helicomparitor
Obviously you two have issues, and I doubt whether you would even agree that the sun is shining on a given day but the main point for me is that manufacturers are causing pilots to lose their licences because of back problems. They may have the best intentions in providing seats that will save your back if you crash, but then they advertise such reliable aircraft that the chances of a crash are small unless your job is higher risk than aircraft failure. That is the basis on which we sell the aircraft to customers after all!
If I have an aircraft that is less likely than any other to kill my passengers, then I want a comfy seat and a quiet environment. I'll take my chances with the people in the back when it all goes wrong. Nick, I'm no chum of HC, but this is not naive, it's day-to-day life. I know people who are in wheelchairs because of unforgiving seats. I agree with HughMartin that a comfortable "stroking" seat is a great idea, but our S92 guys are moaning about their seats already, and they only do about 4 hours a day! I flew the '76 for years and I still suffer from sciatica as a direct result! One respondent suggested filing reports, but we all know that once something is installed, it will stay there and the pilots just have to live with it. Better to get it fixed at the start?
For the record, yes, I have had a bad back. It started after 2000 hours on the S76 and got much worse until I changed fleets (3000 hours later) - to a comfortable, adjustable, technically non-crashworthy seat. I came very close to losing my medical AND having to undergo painful surgery as a direct result of the seats I had to use - the same seats in service on that fleet today.
Crashworthy vs. comfort is not an issue in my mind and, Nick, it is by no means ludicrous. I agree with you that "a seat that breaks your back is a sub-standard seat", but what if it does this over hours of normal service?
Zeb