Not a cc, however.......
 

......as a pax. What is the rationale for having seat armrests down for t/o and landing?
I would have thought that in the event of having to get out quickly, lowered arm rests would prove to be a considerable obstruction.
I noticed the hindrance on two EZY flights last w/e. Not to me but to others around me.

The Ancient Mariner

I have asked the question, in person, of an Emirates crew and got the answer that "that's what it says in our instructions and training". Which still leaves the "Why?" unanswered.

As far as I am aware it is to prevent sideways movement in an impact (e.g. off the runway on landing etc) and can prevent injuries to the ribs/pelvis as it stops pax 'sandwiching' each other.

However this may just be a theory and not the actual reason, though it's the only one I can think of.

Not a cc, however.......
 

I am pretty sure this is the reason too. I have seen a video of crash dummies during an impact where it makes a considerable difference on lateral movement.

Sideways?
 

.....One is already strapped around the hips, and the arm rest is (maybe) a couple of inches higher up so I don't see that suggestion having much weight. The shoulders and upper torso are still free to move side ways in a side impact.

The Ancient Mariner

Dunno, that's what I was told some years ago when I first started flying.

Why don't you email the big manufacturers and ask them? Manuals usually derive from their operating instructions anyway

Evacuation Obstruction
 

If it's movable, then it may fall backwards to the aft row of seats and represents an obstruction of the evacuation of the passengers seated there.

Arm rests aren't obstructions. They are no more of an obstructions than the very seats themselves. For the aisle seats, where the armrests move, there is obviously the chance that someone could fall into the aisle. I don't mean falling arse over tit but certainly the upper body can get flung into the aisle. I guess the middle armrests are there merely for extra support and separation between passengers at a time when the aircraft is more prone to turbulence or sudden movement.

The actual seatbelt will keep you in your seat, but it is fabric it wont keep you rigid, it is also slightly higher so exerts force at a higher point to keep you upright, apart from having a wall between people it is the best solution.

A lot of time effort and money is spent on research in aviation safety when given a reason why do passengers carry on questioning it's validity? Do as your told, when asked to do something it's not to annoy you or make your day awkward/unpleasant it's to save your life!!!!

Bluetui...
 

...Fly with Thompson??

The day we stop questioning things is the day we give up on life.

I always,always watch the safety briefs (although I was active aircrew for 35 years) and I always "do what I'm told". But the assumption that one should never ask a question.....??

The Ancient Mariner

Agreed, there are lots of people who ask questions because they are genuinely interested. However, there are passengers who question you because they either don't want to do what you ask of them or because they don't believe you or deem it to be a 'silly' request and this really does annoy crew. There is a difference though I agree.

BlueTui ...Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed today? :ugh:

I agree with Rossian, there is nothing wrong with asking "Why" in a forum like this.

Maybe the armrests are just there as something to hold onto when the plane careers of the runway.

Possibly to give the passengers in the row behind you less to hit them selves on.

I think its a design restriction to allow them to reduce the weight of the mount points and seatbelt material thickness.

If they have arm rests in they can design with a max weight of 120kg (don;t know what it is) where as if they don't have them its 240kg (again made up number) per point of attachment.

Vol 3 Ch 33 Sec 3

From an FAA document

An upright armrest would be forced down rapidly by the violent deceleration forces of a crash. This could cause injury to any limb or part of the body caught in its path.

[quoteAn upright armrest would be forced down rapidly by the violent deceleration forces of a crash. This could cause injury to any limb or part of the body caught in its path. ][/quote]

What a load of twaddle!

Any deceleration-force capable of doing that, would already have fxxed all the pax anyway.

I was once aquainted with a boat-rigger. he wore a "home-made" rope-belt with a large Phosphor-Bronze snap-shackle closure.....It looked very macho, this huge "gold" gleaming "buckle".....As a snotty nosed teenager, I queried why he wasn't using a Stainless-steel one,-lighter, stronger and less bulky.

He explained that, if he fell from a masthead, the rope would stretch, absorbing energy.......then the shackle would burst.....absorbing energy.....then he would continue deckward,hopefully at a surviveable velocity.

Were the shackle NOT to burst, his back would be broken or in an extreme case the portion of his body above the "belt" would descend independently from the lower half.

That man understood Energy-Management about 50 years ago!

No aircraft accident is going to be fun. Securing anything that can move simply mitigates the risk of further unnecessary injuries.

A patronising response from someone who probably doesn't know the real answer.

A reminder that passengers are paying customers (and not mere inconveniences to the crew) might be in order for some.

However, those in the "real" know have always been aware that the arm rests must be down so that the smelly, unwashed pax don't spill over the side of their tiny stall, sorry, seat into the aisle where they might actually come into contact with some of the clean, but often stroppy and superior cabin crew. After all, it's known as "Cattle Class" in the cheap seats down the back.

Obviously, the far nicer business class people are quite different and come under a different set of rules. They might even get a polite answer to any question they choose to ask, if they catch the right person on a good day.

;)

As the OP...
 

.....may I join in again?

Some of the responses have posited "not unreasonable" explanation but I feel that we still haven't REALLY answered the question, "Why?"

Some of you have been rather brusquer with Blutui than I would have been because I deliberately wanted it to be a genuine enquiry that would not (as happens on too many forums in Pprune) descend into a bitchfest.

As it happens, Shy, it was in Emirates business class that I got the answer I quoted above.

Thanks to those who took the time to reply, and I think we can knock it on the head at this point as an unresolved question.

I shall now return to the peaceful halls of Jet blast.

The Ancient Mariner

I was once told by an A300 captain (when I asked exactly this question) that most regulations/requirements on an aircraft are there rooted on the rules of physics. If I remember his answer (it was in August 1993) it had something to do with keeping the pax correctly in the seat.


ShyTorque excellent input. I always like to know the why..

Rwy in Sight