Brace position
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: RAF Lincolnshire
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also to come out of the Kegworth crash was that many people survived the crash, but were killed in a subsequent fire, or from loff of blood.
The reason was that when sitting in a forward facing seat, when the aircraft and the seat come to an abrupt stop, unless your legs are in the correct brace possition, your legs fly forward. Your shin bone is then neatly broken just below the knee on the lower structure of the seat in front of you.
So even if you are not knocked out due to head injury, you are unable to leave your seat due to one or more broken legs!
The accident report from Kegworth reccomended an improved brace possition, where you tuck your legs as far back under your seat as possible. When you stop, the motion of your body going forward, pushes your legs slightly down, thus preventing them flying forward, and impacting the seat in front of you.
Many airlines have changed the brace possition in the flight safety cards to reflect this, but how many pax have noted this?
It may just save your life!
Having flown in the flight test area for many years, it always shocks me some of the information in the seat back cards, lack of pax attention to pre flight briefs. When flying down the back, I was always glad we had rear facing seats in al our "heavy" aircraft.
Questions for you to think about,
when you drive a car in Europe, people expect a 3 point harness, airbags etc etc. When flying, that single lap strap is all you relie on to hold you for much higher decelleration forces. Thus causing pelvic injury? How many people choose to face the rear when in a train? Why did the military (not known for spending needless money) insist on rear facing seats for the VC10? So how much does the aviation industry put into your survival as opposed to proffit?
The reason was that when sitting in a forward facing seat, when the aircraft and the seat come to an abrupt stop, unless your legs are in the correct brace possition, your legs fly forward. Your shin bone is then neatly broken just below the knee on the lower structure of the seat in front of you.
So even if you are not knocked out due to head injury, you are unable to leave your seat due to one or more broken legs!
The accident report from Kegworth reccomended an improved brace possition, where you tuck your legs as far back under your seat as possible. When you stop, the motion of your body going forward, pushes your legs slightly down, thus preventing them flying forward, and impacting the seat in front of you.
Many airlines have changed the brace possition in the flight safety cards to reflect this, but how many pax have noted this?
It may just save your life!
Having flown in the flight test area for many years, it always shocks me some of the information in the seat back cards, lack of pax attention to pre flight briefs. When flying down the back, I was always glad we had rear facing seats in al our "heavy" aircraft.
Questions for you to think about,
when you drive a car in Europe, people expect a 3 point harness, airbags etc etc. When flying, that single lap strap is all you relie on to hold you for much higher decelleration forces. Thus causing pelvic injury? How many people choose to face the rear when in a train? Why did the military (not known for spending needless money) insist on rear facing seats for the VC10? So how much does the aviation industry put into your survival as opposed to proffit?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that after kegworth, the brace position was changed so that you puut one hand on top of the other, rather than interlocking fingers. This was because many people suffered broken fingers and couldn't undo lap belts...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rear facing seats cost more ?
Erm ... surely they cost just the same, just turn them round 180 degrees and there you have it ..... a rear facing seat. 
Originally Posted by con-pilot
That and smoke hoods for all the passengers. However as usual it comes down to cost. Rear facing seats cost more and are heavier than the standard airline seat. Same thing for the 5-point harness, cost.
To answer your question the brace position is to keep your head from slamming into the seat in front of you which is likely to break your neck.
To answer your question the brace position is to keep your head from slamming into the seat in front of you which is likely to break your neck.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descend to What Height That's actually very interesting, didn't know that and haven't seen or heard it in any briefings.
The last time I tried to show someone the brace position she wasn't very happy when I stuck my head between here legs, nearly kissed my own ass good-bye after that
The last time I tried to show someone the brace position she wasn't very happy when I stuck my head between here legs, nearly kissed my own ass good-bye after that
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear mixture, please read all of my posts, thank you.
You cannot just turn the seats around and hope for the best. First reason are the seat tracts, the other are above.
With rear facing seats the the bracing for G loading is entirely different and the seats heavier due to the additional framework and more expensive due to the additional metal brackets needed for a body's G loading spread over the entire back rest of the seat.
That is probably why all of Southwest Airlines new aircraft have done away with the club style seating arrangement that was installed on the older aircraft. (Now that is just a guess about Southwest mind you.)
That is probably why all of Southwest Airlines new aircraft have done away with the club style seating arrangement that was installed on the older aircraft. (Now that is just a guess about Southwest mind you.)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several Connies have but ditched
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 112 Likes
on
79 Posts
Could be wrong, but didn't some of Dan-Air's 727's have rearward facing seats on a couple of rows at least ? Seem to recall a conversation with a close friend at the time who used to fly to AGP a lot with them and she commented how much she preferred them as a pax.
Paxing All Over The World
I recall BEA doing pax acceptance testing around 74/75 (or 75/76!) I went from LHR to HAM and had been asked if I would like to try the rear facing seats and fill in a form. I did and said that it was fine. The rotation felt a little strange but one would easily have adjusted to it.
I agree with the postings that we will not get rear facing seats as they will say that 'we' will not pay for the stronger and better seats. "After all, if we have got away without for so long - why change now?" Is the kind of thing they will say - indirectly!
I am all too well aware that the lapbelt and front facing seats will not help in any kind of awkward landing. The only way that I could improve the risk would be to always fly BA Club and ensure that I have a rear facing seat and, with no BA Club sleeper seat on short and medium haul, then I would have to hire me private a/c and ensure the seats are turned round.
The only thing that I can do to influence my saftety is to follow instructions, keep abreats of developments - for which many thanks about the poistioning of legs, post Kegworth, which I had not heard - and carry a personal smoke hood. My smoke hood has 20 mins of O2 and if that is not sufficient, the fire or crash will have probably already done the job!
I agree with the postings that we will not get rear facing seats as they will say that 'we' will not pay for the stronger and better seats. "After all, if we have got away without for so long - why change now?" Is the kind of thing they will say - indirectly!
I am all too well aware that the lapbelt and front facing seats will not help in any kind of awkward landing. The only way that I could improve the risk would be to always fly BA Club and ensure that I have a rear facing seat and, with no BA Club sleeper seat on short and medium haul, then I would have to hire me private a/c and ensure the seats are turned round.
The only thing that I can do to influence my saftety is to follow instructions, keep abreats of developments - for which many thanks about the poistioning of legs, post Kegworth, which I had not heard - and carry a personal smoke hood. My smoke hood has 20 mins of O2 and if that is not sufficient, the fire or crash will have probably already done the job!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ozzy
Expanding... I've always wondered if the life vests demo is entirely worthwhile.Ozzy
- 20 September 1989; USAir 737-400; La Guardia Airport, New York - The aircraft ended up in Flushing Bay on a dark and freezing night after coming off the end of a runway on take-off
- 13 January 1982; Air Florida 737-200; Washington, DC - The aircraft struck a bridge and ended up in the Potomac: Life jackets were later discovered with teeth marks on - people had been unable to open and inflate them.
BTW - One of the more useful things that can be done to enhance your survival chances is to dress appropriately for the weather outside should you evacuate. At destinations where the temperature is below freezing, I require my crew to keep either boots, jackets, cardigans or sweaters on until after take-off (in short any uniform item that might keep them warmer without hindering movement). It would be a pity if we survived an accident and subsequent evac, only to be rendered ineffective afterward by the cold. The same also applies to passengers, although we never say anything - a Tee Shirt might not be the best thing to strip down to immediately!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descend to What Height?!? Good post. I would only query one comment:
"The accident report from Kegworth reccomended an improved brace possition, where you tuck your legs as far back under your seat as possible."
I don't think this is true. The angle is important but I think the knees have to be bent so that your feet lie behind the knee joint, but not all the way back. If in doubt, look carefully at the picture on the demo card which displays it correctly (at least it should in UK registered airlines). Then do what it says on the card.
"The accident report from Kegworth reccomended an improved brace possition, where you tuck your legs as far back under your seat as possible."
I don't think this is true. The angle is important but I think the knees have to be bent so that your feet lie behind the knee joint, but not all the way back. If in doubt, look carefully at the picture on the demo card which displays it correctly (at least it should in UK registered airlines). Then do what it says on the card.
How do you think a lower-legs-forward ie actually resting against the seat in front would be? It seems to me that this would reduce the possibility of compression damage to the leg/ankle/knee, while also preventing a shin-breaking impact.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would have thought so but it doesnt. I have seen demonstrations and numerous videos at QinetiQs acceleration/deceleration track over the years. They still had some of the Kegworth seats there years after the event. Whilst we can all sit here pontificating and theorising on what may or may not work, we forget that there are real experts out there using very expensive equipment who spend their lives looking at and researching into these things for our benefit. Believe me when I say that they have probably tried every combination of posture and restraint, using post-mortem studies, to produce the recommended brace position that we see today.
I saw films of crash test dummies which had their legs forward as you describe. It is not a pretty sight, even on dummies, as there is still enough forward momentum on the lower limbs to fracture them on the rigid seat frame in front.
I saw films of crash test dummies which had their legs forward as you describe. It is not a pretty sight, even on dummies, as there is still enough forward momentum on the lower limbs to fracture them on the rigid seat frame in front.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: RAF Lincolnshire
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRB
you are indeed correct. My mistake.
I also spent time at Farborough and Boscombe watching those trials and trying to put the leassons learnt into practice.
I was fortunate that all the "heavy" types I flew had rear facing seats down the back, or if not, at least 4 point harnesses. I think the best were in the old Farnbrough Commet, huge leather things they were!
Oh happy days,
appart from the wet drills in that cold outside pool on a cold winters day at Boscombe.
you are indeed correct. My mistake.
I also spent time at Farborough and Boscombe watching those trials and trying to put the leassons learnt into practice.
I was fortunate that all the "heavy" types I flew had rear facing seats down the back, or if not, at least 4 point harnesses. I think the best were in the old Farnbrough Commet, huge leather things they were!
Oh happy days,
appart from the wet drills in that cold outside pool on a cold winters day at Boscombe.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveO`Leary
why not incorporate air bags (as in cars) behind each seat.
). My understanding is that any aircraft design that was certified after 1994 is required to have airbags fitted to seatbelts where a headstrike (against anything other than the seat in front) is possible. VS have AirBag Seatbelts in the Upper Class Suite, as there is the possibility of headstrike against the privacy barrier in the event of a sudden stop. These airbags activate under certain G force pressure... As the airbag inflates, it follows the path of least resistance - so will mould to fit around the person or adult/baby combination. There is also airbags in the economy cabin where a headstrike is possible against the door bustle or bulkhead.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously lessons were learned from the unfortunate Kegworth crash and new safety practices recommended.
Were there any infants on board and if so was the infant loop seat belt effective? (I'm trying to tie this in with Lufthansa's reply to a query posted here on Pprune)
Were there any infants on board and if so was the infant loop seat belt effective? (I'm trying to tie this in with Lufthansa's reply to a query posted here on Pprune)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't remember there being infants in the Kegworth crash.
There is a trans-Atlantic divide on the issue of child restraints for children under 2 years old. (I'm referring to the lap belt that loops around the adult's belt). The UK mandate having them, the FAA forbid them.
I'm told the FAA argument against them is based on studies that show the child can be injured if the adult "jack-knifes" over the child. In extreme cases the FAA studies consider them to be only marginally effective in preventing injury. Also, their statistics show that there have only been about 3 infant fatalities since the 70s attributable to children being unrestrained in crashes, therefore there is little to be gained in terms of lives saved by making them compulsory.
The UK (and other authorities) consider them effective in preventing the infant becoming a missile which can injure others. Most studies also show that injuries are reduced when there is less opportunity for sudden movement, hence any restraint like an infant lap belt which loops around the adult belt is better than no restraint at all.
There is a trans-Atlantic divide on the issue of child restraints for children under 2 years old. (I'm referring to the lap belt that loops around the adult's belt). The UK mandate having them, the FAA forbid them.
I'm told the FAA argument against them is based on studies that show the child can be injured if the adult "jack-knifes" over the child. In extreme cases the FAA studies consider them to be only marginally effective in preventing injury. Also, their statistics show that there have only been about 3 infant fatalities since the 70s attributable to children being unrestrained in crashes, therefore there is little to be gained in terms of lives saved by making them compulsory.
The UK (and other authorities) consider them effective in preventing the infant becoming a missile which can injure others. Most studies also show that injuries are reduced when there is less opportunity for sudden movement, hence any restraint like an infant lap belt which loops around the adult belt is better than no restraint at all.