Charter Airline Legroom
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's interesting. I never knew that the legal minimum seat spacing is defined in terms of "legroom" as opposed to seat pitch. Since it is, it follows that "legroom" is very precisely defined also, and I have never heard of that before.
I've only ever talked in terms of pitch. We live to learn.
I'm guessing, from what you say, that it's the distance between the front of the seat back where it meets the bottom cushion, to the back of the seat in front on a horizontal line, across the centre of the seat.
Is that anywhere close?
Incidentally, when you say "legal in the UK", which is the applicable law/regulation here? Is there a reference we can look up for this? Does it apply only to UK-registered aircraft?
I've only ever talked in terms of pitch. We live to learn.
I'm guessing, from what you say, that it's the distance between the front of the seat back where it meets the bottom cushion, to the back of the seat in front on a horizontal line, across the centre of the seat.
Is that anywhere close?
Incidentally, when you say "legal in the UK", which is the applicable law/regulation here? Is there a reference we can look up for this? Does it apply only to UK-registered aircraft?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've also never heard of a legal requirement for minimum legroom, only seat pitch. I'm curious how airlines could physically mechanically fit seats to comply, given that the thickness of a seat cushion is a variable, whereas the seat pitch is surely a constant, related to the position in the seat track. Is there a reference document (link pls) somewhere that specifies the legal legroom requirement?
Edit: For interest only, how can the seat pitch be measured at 38" when a seat is a bulkhead seat - surely there is no seat in front to establish pitch: Is this a measure to the bulkhead wall, and if so, is there a minimum published distance somewhere?
Edit: For interest only, how can the seat pitch be measured at 38" when a seat is a bulkhead seat - surely there is no seat in front to establish pitch: Is this a measure to the bulkhead wall, and if so, is there a minimum published distance somewhere?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rather thought so, but I was trying to be polite, if sceptical.
I was not seriously expecting the assertion "The actual legal minimum legroom in the UK is 26 inches" to be substantiated by a valid reference, and nor was Tightslot, I think.
I was not seriously expecting the assertion "The actual legal minimum legroom in the UK is 26 inches" to be substantiated by a valid reference, and nor was Tightslot, I think.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seat pitch is the legal requirement NOT legroom...
The following is an extract from this document issued by the British Air Transport Association.
The United Kingdom is the only country that has regulations defining the minimum size of passenger seats and the space between seats. These regulations apply to all aircraft registered in the UK. The regulations state that the minimum distance between the front of the back support cushion of a seat and the back of the seat or other fixed structure in front should be 26 inches (660mm). This distance is designed to ensure the rapid and safe evacuation of passengers in an emergency. This dimension is not the same as seat pitch. Consideration must also be given to the thickness of the back support and cushion which will vary with the type of seat but is on average about 2 inches (51mm) thick. In practice, the minimum seat pitch necessary to comply with the regulations is 28 inches (711mm).
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael SWS
Thanks for that; very illuminating, and I agree to the draw! (I'm gratified to see that my guess as to what it might mean wasn't far off the mark...)
However, while I have every respect for BATA and do not doubt their information, I would still be very interested to know precisely which law or regulation they are basing that statment on.
Not because I am still sceptical, but because I would like to bottom this one out for a lot of reasons.
Does anyone have any knowledge on that?
Thanks for that; very illuminating, and I agree to the draw! (I'm gratified to see that my guess as to what it might mean wasn't far off the mark...)
However, while I have every respect for BATA and do not doubt their information, I would still be very interested to know precisely which law or regulation they are basing that statment on.
Not because I am still sceptical, but because I would like to bottom this one out for a lot of reasons.
Does anyone have any knowledge on that?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting interesting...well, perhaps not, but it is to me!
There was an Airworthiness Notice AN 64 which did indeed specify various minimum dimensions for seat spacing.
The last reference I can find to that, in a very quick trawl, was 2005, when in a Parliamentary reply it was said that "at the time EASA took over responsibility, the CAA had a set of minimum seat-space dimensions" by which I assume the writer meant AN 64.
So the question is whether or not EASA have adopted and applied any minimum dimensions, and I think the answer is "no".
The CAA refer to their "belief that there is a safety case for minimum seat-space dimensions", here. But that's all.
(Incidentally, EASA regulation starts with a safety case, so if the CAA are still trying to persuade EASA that there is a case, the rule-making process hasn't even started.)
Therefore, I suspect that the reality is that EASA, and therefore the UK, presently has no defined minimum dimensions similar to the old AN 64, and that BATA, typically, simply have not caught up with that.
But I could very easily be wrong!
Apart from a safety case paper about aisle width in a B737 being converted from private to commercial use, EASA doesn't appear to have anything in the pipeline, but with their website as it is, I could well have missed it.
UK Government websites, with the honourable exception of the CAA, seem to take the weekend off just like their owners, and research is hampered by that. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........
What prompted my scepticism was the idea that there can be an aviation safety regulation for public air transport that applies only to aircraft registered in the UK. All the CAA (SRG) now exists for is to enforce EASA compliance. (As slowly and expensively as they can possibly manage, but that's another issue.)
There was an Airworthiness Notice AN 64 which did indeed specify various minimum dimensions for seat spacing.
The last reference I can find to that, in a very quick trawl, was 2005, when in a Parliamentary reply it was said that "at the time EASA took over responsibility, the CAA had a set of minimum seat-space dimensions" by which I assume the writer meant AN 64.
So the question is whether or not EASA have adopted and applied any minimum dimensions, and I think the answer is "no".
The CAA refer to their "belief that there is a safety case for minimum seat-space dimensions", here. But that's all.
(Incidentally, EASA regulation starts with a safety case, so if the CAA are still trying to persuade EASA that there is a case, the rule-making process hasn't even started.)
Therefore, I suspect that the reality is that EASA, and therefore the UK, presently has no defined minimum dimensions similar to the old AN 64, and that BATA, typically, simply have not caught up with that.
But I could very easily be wrong!
Apart from a safety case paper about aisle width in a B737 being converted from private to commercial use, EASA doesn't appear to have anything in the pipeline, but with their website as it is, I could well have missed it.
UK Government websites, with the honourable exception of the CAA, seem to take the weekend off just like their owners, and research is hampered by that. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........
What prompted my scepticism was the idea that there can be an aviation safety regulation for public air transport that applies only to aircraft registered in the UK. All the CAA (SRG) now exists for is to enforce EASA compliance. (As slowly and expensively as they can possibly manage, but that's another issue.)
