Armrest Restriction...?
 

Hi

Can anyone provide any background information re the requirement for armrests to be down during take-off and landing..? (i.e. any actual regulatory requirement for this). I've been told that this is myth yet I'm sure there are still airlines that require this as part of cabin secure....?

Yes it is a vital part of standard operations. The armrests are designed for protection in the event of an impact combined with the correct brace position and prevent flailing of limbs etc. It is perhaps more relevant in the event that there is no passenger seated beside you but at the same time some of the forces one may encounter may very well cause a passenger even fully braced to smack against another passenger causing severe hip and pelvis damage.
Now could still happen against an arm rest but at least it may protect your neighbour!

Thanks. I am aware of a number of other reasons as well re why armrests should be down during take-off and landing, however I can't find an actual regulation specifying this (it can be inferred, but nothing so far spelling it out); if anyone can point me in the right direction here I would be very grateful! :confused:

Also, if it's a particularly hard landing or a sudden stop, the arm rest could fly down quickly, smashing into your elbow or hip-bone... or if you're kid is resting their head on your lap, could smash their cranium open... not a pretty thought. Enjoy your flight. :ok:

pretty good point. I hadn't thught of that.

The reason ive always know it is the same a why seat backs have to be upright.

All equipment is designed to protect you in the event of a crash landing, you get the most protection when the equipment is in the correct, most stable position. ie seat backs up and armrests down. This is when the seat is at it strongest.

I dont know if it is the real reason but its what ive learnt, i dont use it to explain to pax who have their sleeping child, who they dont wanna wake up cause he will cry, lying across three seats. I uaully say if we have a heavy landing the arm rest is gonna come staright down on your child. they usually move the child pretty quick!

Jannie beat me to it. I as always of the understanding that the seat is designed to be upright for takeoff and landing as it best resists impact forces in that position. That woud go for the armrest too.

I also used to get pax to put the armrests down for the same reason, as they can come down quite fast and if you've ever knocked you elbow then you can imagine the kind of pain it can cause :uhoh:

PartTimeCartTart...

The reason that you are having difficulty locating a specific regulatory reference for the armrest is that there isn't one (unless your local CAA has it written into their regulations). However, all of the reasons mentioned above are valid ones for an operator to consider having the requirement in place.

As well, the seat back is designed to be an energy absorption device for the passenger seated behind -- as that person comes into contact with it during a sudden deceleration, the seat back absorbs the force of the person impacting it and transfers that energy through to the seat base.

If the armrest is left up, it is possible that it could cause injury during an impact sequence if there are lateral forces involved. However, the seat manufacturer must take this into account during design and testing to demonstrate that the passenger will not suffer serious injury in an emergency landing as a result of the inertia forces specified in the design standards.

I've have often wondered why the the pax belts ain't the same as the f/d crew fit. Hey we all drive cars, and can 'click' the seat belt. 250-0 knots waist only restraint will/might/probably cut one in half in the crash position (worst scenario) I would rather take my chances, arms bent on the rear of seat in front of me.

It's a total sham why waist/cross chest belts are not incorporated on a/c as in cars. Knowing that the vehicle industry has carried out more exhaustive tests on passenger survivability.I wonder why just waist restraints were opt for in a/c?

" It's a total sham why waist/cross chest belts are not incorporated on a/c as in cars. Knowing that the vehicle industry has carried out more exhaustive tests on passenger survivability.I wonder why just waist restraints were opt for in a/c? "

As with most things, it comes down to cost.
Otherwise the bottom of the seat tray would contain an airbag. Or passengers would be wrapped in bubble pack on boarding. :)

The rearward facing crew seats on 747s have a much more comprehensive belt system on them so the technology exists. It's ironic that the seats facing in the safest direction have the best belt protection? I can't see the airline industry adopting the RAF's best practice and having all their passenger aircraft seats facing backwards though!

There was some debate about the rearward facing seats some years ago and although it was proven that rearward facing seats are indeed more safe, passenger would never adapt to it. I know I personally never like to sit rear facing on a train for example.

Working for BA I do get a fair few comments from passengers in Club who suddenly get onboard and realise that they are sitting backwards. Many do not like the sensation of taking off backwards and I suppose to those who are sufferers of motion sickness it can be stressful to them.

Also, and heaven forbid it should happen, I could easily see passengers adopting the incorrect brace position when sitting rearwards simply out of habit of seeing the conventional brace position from forward facing seats. In Club those facing backwards are asked to remain fully back in their seats with their arms crossed over their chest.

Geez! It's hard enough getting pax to keep a regular seatbelt on as it is, can you imagine trying a more complicated one??

I can imagine that also the need for inertia reels on them would take up a lot of space/weight, and necessitate an entirely new seat design.

Always wanted to ask why it is the arm-rest located next to the aisle can't be raised at all?

Depends on the aircraft. On newer Boeings if you feel underneath there's a latch which you push back and it will lift up. Needs to stay down for t/o and landing though! ;)

My comment was always (for the UK market):

"If it is mandatory to wear a seatbelt when travelling in a car up to 70 mph, and I am sure you have seen the adverts about it... why on earth would you not want to wear one when you are travelling 550 mph?"

Never had an issue with it after that........

Can genuinely understand though why people question it when they see us walking around the aircraft when seat belt sign is on...

Is all about talking to people as adults and trying to explain the reasons behind it, be it seat belts, no smoking signs, alcohol..

As for armrests, agree with all above and usually have to explain it to numerous people, once is understood, again, never had an issue....

Safe flying all . . . . . . . . .

I am not flight crew, but here are some comments on seat belts from scientific
point of view - it is much more than just cost.

1) It is not the speed that kills, but how quickly you change speed. You can
run into a wall and die at 20 mph. Of course, if you start at 250knots then it is
more likely you will change speed quite rapidly - but see 2

2) The type of accident in a car is quite different from that in a plane. Car accidents
are common and often involve rapid de-acceleration (you hit another car). The 3
point seat belt will often save your life, but it is also designed to keep you in the
car and in the right place to stop you hitting things - but also to provide restraint
to the limit of the car staying intact. Better seat belts in a normal
car are not worth installing since greater forces will result in complete destruction
of the car.
The physical plane can either survive intact in an accident, or break up; this
is very little different than a car. The forces required that result in the break up
of a plane are less than those required to break up a car, so the restraint for a
passenger need not be so comprehensive. Hence, the lap style seat belt is designed
to keep the passenger in the seat and not hurt other people and themselves to the
limit of the forces which will not destroy the plane. The question is therefore, why
not make stronger planes - this is difficult since this would increase weight. The
second option is therefore have a very strict criteria for use of planes - well
qualified pilots, controls on the plane operation, ATC, engineering and staff
to tell passengers to conform to rules that will keep them alive. This is
cheaper than building planes will survive a massive impact; even then we would
get the problem that the forces would be so massive that any form of restraint
would be pointless (lets not go there).
The lap belt is a sensible restraint for a plane if worn.

As to passengers not doing what they are told - since I am not flight crew I hopefully
I can get away with noting that it just improves the gene pool. :)

Thanks CD. I wonder why it's not in the actual legislation when there seems to be so many valid reasons!