Emergency brace position
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: UK
Emergency brace position
I refer to the emergency brace position given to airline passengers (the printed cards in the seat back pockets). Can anybody please tell me where this information comes from? In the UK the information for the emergency brace position is defined by and given out by the Civil Aviation Authority (and airlines have to follow it). But who does this in the USA?
Thanks for your help, Russell Eaton
Thanks for your help, Russell Eaton
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: EGXP
When I last went through the Boscombe Training Course, I believe the cards had to show a brace possition, but there was not an official position as such, and comparing cards from different airlines and aircraft, all showed different positions.
There was a very strong argument put forward after work done by the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine at Farnborough after the Kegworth crash, to standardise the position. This modified position was adopted by many airlines (after a fashion), but I was not aware of this being a formal one imposed by the CAA, unless any one out there knows different??
Mind you, the problem could easily be solved with rear facing seats, but that costs money doesn't it!
There was a very strong argument put forward after work done by the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine at Farnborough after the Kegworth crash, to standardise the position. This modified position was adopted by many airlines (after a fashion), but I was not aware of this being a formal one imposed by the CAA, unless any one out there knows different??
Mind you, the problem could easily be solved with rear facing seats, but that costs money doesn't it!
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: EGXP
idg,
total mismanagement, and politics meant she did her last scientific flight 28th March 2001. Been stripped out (butchered?) & collecting dust at EGDM since then, with only a very few trips. Typical QinetiQ accounting means she is too expensive to fly, and cheaper to hire an aircraft in from EGDL!
We however are now at the mercy of UK universities plc, and Wate of Space, with a second hand 146, still in bits up North, and way behind schedual, with BAES scrambling to get out of the contract, realising they can't deliver all of contract.
Meanwhile, the Profs have thier egos so far up where the sun don't shine, that the sensible option of going back to the best aircraft in the world for this job, is just not even being considered.
Final ironey is that EGDM is now being looked at as one of a large number of 3rd party contractors to operate the "new" 146, if it ever gets off the ground, on behalf of waste of space, who have decided there is no money in it, and this type of operation does not fit their corporate profile.
total mismanagement, and politics meant she did her last scientific flight 28th March 2001. Been stripped out (butchered?) & collecting dust at EGDM since then, with only a very few trips. Typical QinetiQ accounting means she is too expensive to fly, and cheaper to hire an aircraft in from EGDL!
We however are now at the mercy of UK universities plc, and Wate of Space, with a second hand 146, still in bits up North, and way behind schedual, with BAES scrambling to get out of the contract, realising they can't deliver all of contract.
Meanwhile, the Profs have thier egos so far up where the sun don't shine, that the sensible option of going back to the best aircraft in the world for this job, is just not even being considered.
Final ironey is that EGDM is now being looked at as one of a large number of 3rd party contractors to operate the "new" 146, if it ever gets off the ground, on behalf of waste of space, who have decided there is no money in it, and this type of operation does not fit their corporate profile.
Last edited by XV208 SNOOPY; 10th April 2002 at 11:46.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
I believe that the airlines are all responsible for their own advice, but that the primary sourse of their wisdom comes in the UK from CAA, who got it from the RAF IAM.
In the USA, I think the source of wisdom is airlines from FAA, from NASA.
G
In the USA, I think the source of wisdom is airlines from FAA, from NASA.
G
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
From: Montsegur
XV208
While rear ward facing seats are better from the brace point of view they do leave you open to the risk of being hit in the face by a bottle of duty free travelling at 200 mph.
I heard that they had been trialed once but were not popular, especially at take off.
I was not aware that cost was an issue. Why will rear facing seats costs more than forward facing ones.
While rear ward facing seats are better from the brace point of view they do leave you open to the risk of being hit in the face by a bottle of duty free travelling at 200 mph.
I heard that they had been trialed once but were not popular, especially at take off.I was not aware that cost was an issue. Why will rear facing seats costs more than forward facing ones.
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 6
From: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Because to replace all the forward facing seats with rearward facing costs money.
Rearward facing isn't always unpopular. Look at the new full recliner / bed types now fitted in 1st class.
Train passenger also accept them as do those who travel in business jets.
Rearward facing isn't always unpopular. Look at the new full recliner / bed types now fitted in 1st class.
Train passenger also accept them as do those who travel in business jets.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: EGXP
The cost issue is on several fronts, so the argument goes.
1) The seats have to be stronger and higher to absorbe the impact of the back and head of the occupant.
2) It was argued by at least one airline, that the cost of turning all the in flight entertainment monitors/screens around would be prohibative, and with the higher seats needed, the SLF would not get a good view of the screen. Now no longer a factor of course with seat back displays.
I used rear facing seats for over 10 years, and even on take off never found them a problem. As to being hit in the face by duty free, carry on luggage and cabin debris is another vital, but over looked safety issue. How many people have you seen been injured by some muppet of a SLF dropping heavy and large items from the overhead lockers? In many accidents, people have survived the impact, only to be killed by the overloaded overhead lockers falling on them. The video footage on the interior of the Kegworth B737 is an excelent illistration of this. Why allow glass bottles in the cabin, and not provide an order and collect service? Simple, proffit for the airlines!
Safety only matters if it does not get in the way of proffit!
1) The seats have to be stronger and higher to absorbe the impact of the back and head of the occupant.
2) It was argued by at least one airline, that the cost of turning all the in flight entertainment monitors/screens around would be prohibative, and with the higher seats needed, the SLF would not get a good view of the screen. Now no longer a factor of course with seat back displays.
I used rear facing seats for over 10 years, and even on take off never found them a problem. As to being hit in the face by duty free, carry on luggage and cabin debris is another vital, but over looked safety issue. How many people have you seen been injured by some muppet of a SLF dropping heavy and large items from the overhead lockers? In many accidents, people have survived the impact, only to be killed by the overloaded overhead lockers falling on them. The video footage on the interior of the Kegworth B737 is an excelent illistration of this. Why allow glass bottles in the cabin, and not provide an order and collect service? Simple, proffit for the airlines!
Safety only matters if it does not get in the way of proffit!
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
From: Montsegur
I fully accept that to refit the aircraft specifically to fit rear facing seat would be expensive. However, would the additonal costs of redisigned seats be significant if part of the original cabin design on a new aircraft?
I suspect that the direct cost may not be the problem, rather the fear that radical change will be spurned by reactionary passengers. On trains I nearly always go for the rearward facing seats but the majority of passengers seem to prefer facing the engine. But then again I'm often wrong.
If there's no profit,you'd have 100% safety as there would be no airlines and no pilots. As with all things you have to strike a balance.
I suspect that the direct cost may not be the problem, rather the fear that radical change will be spurned by reactionary passengers. On trains I nearly always go for the rearward facing seats but the majority of passengers seem to prefer facing the engine. But then again I'm often wrong.
If there's no profit,you'd have 100% safety as there would be no airlines and no pilots. As with all things you have to strike a balance.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,201
Likes: 0
From: Chichester West Sussex UK
I suspect there is a lot more to installing rear facing seats than turning front facing ones round.
With rear facing seats the crash loads exerted on the aircraft by the passenger’s inertia are greater and more complicated. On impact a forward facing passenger merely stresses the seat through the lap strap attachment points which are quite low and produce limited tendencies for the seat to rotate top forward. Once you turn the seat round the passenger is supported in the sitting position and you have to consider where the passenger’s cg is. If this is only inches higher than the seat belt attachment height then there will be much larger seat rotating loads to be taken out by the floor to say nothing about the extra strength needed in the seat back itself to stop that breaking off backwards.
So sadly rearward facing seats have to be stronger and so does the floor. This either means more weight (more of the same material) or more cost (changing to stronger materials) or a combination.
Mind you I believe such extra safety (and its costs) should be mandated through airworthiness requirements and the ticket price adjusted to whatever it needs to be as a result. The same as the provision of sensible comfort levels by higher seat pitch minima. But there you go, old reactionary farts always say things like that.
With rear facing seats the crash loads exerted on the aircraft by the passenger’s inertia are greater and more complicated. On impact a forward facing passenger merely stresses the seat through the lap strap attachment points which are quite low and produce limited tendencies for the seat to rotate top forward. Once you turn the seat round the passenger is supported in the sitting position and you have to consider where the passenger’s cg is. If this is only inches higher than the seat belt attachment height then there will be much larger seat rotating loads to be taken out by the floor to say nothing about the extra strength needed in the seat back itself to stop that breaking off backwards.
So sadly rearward facing seats have to be stronger and so does the floor. This either means more weight (more of the same material) or more cost (changing to stronger materials) or a combination.
Mind you I believe such extra safety (and its costs) should be mandated through airworthiness requirements and the ticket price adjusted to whatever it needs to be as a result. The same as the provision of sensible comfort levels by higher seat pitch minima. But there you go, old reactionary farts always say things like that.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
From: by the river
Backwards is better
Interesting logic on the seat strength required - not sure that BA's Business class long haul have taken that into account. I'm also fairly certain that that was never considered on BEA's Tridents - where the front 2-5 rows were wrong way round.
BA seems to be the only company to have tried flying backwards. Personally I love it, but a high percentage of PAX seem not to be of my opinion, which is nice coz getting seats is easier.
BA seems to be the only company to have tried flying backwards. Personally I love it, but a high percentage of PAX seem not to be of my opinion, which is nice coz getting seats is easier.
