Court Win May Change Future of Air travel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jet II, you said: [quote]Why if sitting in one place causes DVT are the Flight Crew not dropping like flies.<hr></blockquote>Let's get that urban myth buried quickly, lest it detract from the real debate.
Flight crew 'seat pitch' (for want of a better phrase) cannot be compared in any way with that provided for the SLF. Seats are adjustable fore and aft, up and down, and rudder pedals are also adjustable in the fore and aft sense. Seat backs can be reclined to some extent and, on most flightdecks, the pilots are separated by feet rather than inches. Pilots are engaged in constant, though limited, physical activity.
These factors, then, may have something to do with why flight crew are not 'dropping like flies'.
Flight crew 'seat pitch' (for want of a better phrase) cannot be compared in any way with that provided for the SLF. Seats are adjustable fore and aft, up and down, and rudder pedals are also adjustable in the fore and aft sense. Seat backs can be reclined to some extent and, on most flightdecks, the pilots are separated by feet rather than inches. Pilots are engaged in constant, though limited, physical activity.
These factors, then, may have something to do with why flight crew are not 'dropping like flies'.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot n Hih,
I agree you get what you pay for in all walks of life. But in the context of my last two posts, I was relating purely to SAFETY.
Are we to assume, that a lower fare could be offered to passengers by only having one pilot on say a 737, and if he pops his clogs, then the passengers have no right to complain as 'they get what they pay for'.
What is being discussed is MINIMUM safety standards, and most passengers ASSUME that the airlines priority will be to comply with minimum standards. The ICE report suggests that current practice is unsafe in relation to some seat dimensions (read the report). As regards the brace position, I am no expert on this, but my understanding has always been it was derived from data and studies looking at actual injuries sustained in airline crashes. (but, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I am pretty sure the described brace position would not have been mandated in the way it has been, if it was not felt to be of importance, and as such, it can only be dangerous if, according to this report a large percentage of passengers cannot adopt said position.
As regards, 'you get what you pay for', it should more correctly, in aviation, be 'you get what you think you pay for'. Most passengers believe safety is paramount when they purchase an airline ticket. If this report is correct, then that is simply not the case.
As someone has already pointed out, if passengers were told at time of ticket purchase that the flight would be grossly uncomfortable and they would not be able to adopt the CAA stipulated brace position (designed to minimise injury)and the seats were too close together to evacuate quickly in an emergency, then most passengers WOULD choose an alternative. At present they DO NOT have that information and cannot make such a judgement.
Much has been made of studies suggesting that passengers will not pay more for larger seats etc.. but if those same passengers were given the above information at time of purchase, with a compliant ticket costing £50 more, I do not think many would go for the cheaper ticket.
I cannot stress this more than enough, the general public ASSUME safety is assured no matter how cheap the ticket. A typical explanation of this from the travelling public would be "they wouldn't let it fly if it was unsafe".
As regards the comment that everything in life has risks, I agree entirely. Does this mean that in aviation we should not minimise risks where possible? No one is asking for ten extra engines or airbags! Simply that the seats are adequately placed to allow for evacuation and adoption of the Brace position. As the cost would be passed on to the punters, I really do not think it is such a big deal.
Cost benefit analysis in relation to safety is irrelevant, until such an anlysis is performed in the light of all relevant factors, including said sudy. Until then it is theoretical piffle.
Anyway I've had my say, I'm not an expert in this area, so I feel as though I've had more than my thruppennies worth, already. I just get irritated at the nonsense arguments put forward as a means of bypassing good safety standards, and excusing sloppy practice. The nonsense arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. I hope the Sunday Times is successful. I suspect nothing will happen, as I said before, until the sh*t hits the fan. Sadly.
I'll shut up now.
I agree you get what you pay for in all walks of life. But in the context of my last two posts, I was relating purely to SAFETY.
Are we to assume, that a lower fare could be offered to passengers by only having one pilot on say a 737, and if he pops his clogs, then the passengers have no right to complain as 'they get what they pay for'.
What is being discussed is MINIMUM safety standards, and most passengers ASSUME that the airlines priority will be to comply with minimum standards. The ICE report suggests that current practice is unsafe in relation to some seat dimensions (read the report). As regards the brace position, I am no expert on this, but my understanding has always been it was derived from data and studies looking at actual injuries sustained in airline crashes. (but, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I am pretty sure the described brace position would not have been mandated in the way it has been, if it was not felt to be of importance, and as such, it can only be dangerous if, according to this report a large percentage of passengers cannot adopt said position.
As regards, 'you get what you pay for', it should more correctly, in aviation, be 'you get what you think you pay for'. Most passengers believe safety is paramount when they purchase an airline ticket. If this report is correct, then that is simply not the case.
As someone has already pointed out, if passengers were told at time of ticket purchase that the flight would be grossly uncomfortable and they would not be able to adopt the CAA stipulated brace position (designed to minimise injury)and the seats were too close together to evacuate quickly in an emergency, then most passengers WOULD choose an alternative. At present they DO NOT have that information and cannot make such a judgement.
Much has been made of studies suggesting that passengers will not pay more for larger seats etc.. but if those same passengers were given the above information at time of purchase, with a compliant ticket costing £50 more, I do not think many would go for the cheaper ticket.
I cannot stress this more than enough, the general public ASSUME safety is assured no matter how cheap the ticket. A typical explanation of this from the travelling public would be "they wouldn't let it fly if it was unsafe".
As regards the comment that everything in life has risks, I agree entirely. Does this mean that in aviation we should not minimise risks where possible? No one is asking for ten extra engines or airbags! Simply that the seats are adequately placed to allow for evacuation and adoption of the Brace position. As the cost would be passed on to the punters, I really do not think it is such a big deal.
Cost benefit analysis in relation to safety is irrelevant, until such an anlysis is performed in the light of all relevant factors, including said sudy. Until then it is theoretical piffle.
Anyway I've had my say, I'm not an expert in this area, so I feel as though I've had more than my thruppennies worth, already. I just get irritated at the nonsense arguments put forward as a means of bypassing good safety standards, and excusing sloppy practice. The nonsense arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. I hope the Sunday Times is successful. I suspect nothing will happen, as I said before, until the sh*t hits the fan. Sadly.
I'll shut up now.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
"Most passengers believe safety is paramount when they purchase an airline ticket"
Safety is not, and never has been paramount. All decisions regarding aircraft standards are made using a cost-benefit analysis. It is the same in every other walk of life.
Any argument about seat pitch/width should be made to the relevant licencing authority (FAA/CAA)it is they who decide how much leg room you will get and whether it is safe. An airline will only extend seat pitch if everyone else does, because the SLF has shown (see the success of Easyjet, Ryanair, Southwest etc) that price is king.
"Most passengers believe safety is paramount when they purchase an airline ticket"
Safety is not, and never has been paramount. All decisions regarding aircraft standards are made using a cost-benefit analysis. It is the same in every other walk of life.
Any argument about seat pitch/width should be made to the relevant licencing authority (FAA/CAA)it is they who decide how much leg room you will get and whether it is safe. An airline will only extend seat pitch if everyone else does, because the SLF has shown (see the success of Easyjet, Ryanair, Southwest etc) that price is king.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the "brace" position, I was under the impression that the idea was to get everybody's head below the top of the seats, thus having a much higher chance of keeping the teeth in reasonably close proximity to the rest of the body and enabling quicker identifcation of remains!
Hi FPPF,
Just picked up your post. You and I are both on the same side here - improved Flight Safety at the end of the day. I am quite sure your "theoretical piffle" comment is not meant to imply that I would condone shoddy Flight Safety! At various times I have been Pilot, Aerospace Engineer and Pax and Flight Safety gets my absolute vote from all angles. Bottom line is it keeps me alive at the end of the day! And CBA is what helps me get that Safety.
In my initial post I just wished to mention that it is a fact of life that Safety, as with all other aspects of Design, including the generation of Minimum Standards in the first place, is based on costs vs benefits and needs to be paid for. This happens in any industry. CBA is the tool we use to ensure that economically sustainable Flight Safety levels exist to everyone's benefit. Not only does this CBA process take place during the design process of a specific aircraft. When setting legal minima, there are a whole range of Stakeholders who all have their input and who carry out CBAs before voicing their views. I am sure I am correct when I say that everyone wants better Safety - it is just the weighting which changes. It all boils down to Risk Management. For an example of how interpretation differs, you, yourself, said that no one is asking for "ten extra engines" - but I am sure there are those people out there who would not dream of stepping on board an aircraft even if it had 1000 engines! Remember the ETOPS debate? What CBA does is take the risks, takes the solution, their costs and their effectiveness and draws that line. Yes, it does take the things like the findings of the report into account. What often happens is that the resulting solution is not what an individual would expect, nor does it occur within the timescales we would like. And the bottom line is we do get what we pay for. Alas, I am not quite so sure that consumers always react as we would expect - people are often illogically fickle when it comes to spending money.
In this case it is clear that, statistically, things have changed. Is that not why these sort of reports are periodically compiled anyway? It does seem that there needs to be a review of the whole ergonomic situation in the cabin. Indeed, even as that review takes place a new compromise will be reached through CBA. Where is the cut-off on the distribution curve where we redefine the minimum seat pitch? Should the new minima apply retrospectively? Should we publish that anyone over a certain height does not meet this minima, old and/or new? Maybe we should? Do we go as far as some Theme Parks which clearly state "Height limitations exist on some rides"? Where does this line on telling people what is going on actually fall? I guess this is where you are coming from. Minima are actually generated to save people having to check if something is safe. Effectively, society does that for them through legislation. However, it will still only be safe for the X%ile. Your car will be the same. In this particular case, legislation needs a review. In addition, data may need to be made available but, again, where do we draw the line? Just how much information do the travelling public require? Wish I knew the answer! Clearly, something needs to be done, all we have to do is work out how much and what the cost is. Once again, our friends in Marketing may be able to advise us just how price-sensitive people are, even when Safety is discussed.
Finally, FPPF, I had to laugh at your comment about "only having one pilot on say a 737"! There are several breeds of Aviator who do not exist anymore today. Navigators were first out the Cockpit. Flight Engineers are now almost extinct and their loss to the cockpit is still debated to this very day. And, yes, their departure from their seats did/does reduce costs. Even the seats went! So, how much longer will Pilots exist? Now, before you decide that H 'n' H has lost it completely, I am sure Navs and FEs were deemed "indispensable" in their day! I am not saying our licences will be valueless in 10 years let alone 100, but I know there are Bean-counters out there who want us out. It's just that CBA is keeping us in there as they have not overcome all the issues - yet! And, on that cynical note, I, too, will step aside from the debate - with audible sighs of relief from the entire PPRruNe fraternity at that revelation! Like, FPPF, I do hope we get the changes right and that can only be helped by sensible lobbying by groups including the Press (the voice of reason?).
Regards, H 'n' H
Just picked up your post. You and I are both on the same side here - improved Flight Safety at the end of the day. I am quite sure your "theoretical piffle" comment is not meant to imply that I would condone shoddy Flight Safety! At various times I have been Pilot, Aerospace Engineer and Pax and Flight Safety gets my absolute vote from all angles. Bottom line is it keeps me alive at the end of the day! And CBA is what helps me get that Safety.
In my initial post I just wished to mention that it is a fact of life that Safety, as with all other aspects of Design, including the generation of Minimum Standards in the first place, is based on costs vs benefits and needs to be paid for. This happens in any industry. CBA is the tool we use to ensure that economically sustainable Flight Safety levels exist to everyone's benefit. Not only does this CBA process take place during the design process of a specific aircraft. When setting legal minima, there are a whole range of Stakeholders who all have their input and who carry out CBAs before voicing their views. I am sure I am correct when I say that everyone wants better Safety - it is just the weighting which changes. It all boils down to Risk Management. For an example of how interpretation differs, you, yourself, said that no one is asking for "ten extra engines" - but I am sure there are those people out there who would not dream of stepping on board an aircraft even if it had 1000 engines! Remember the ETOPS debate? What CBA does is take the risks, takes the solution, their costs and their effectiveness and draws that line. Yes, it does take the things like the findings of the report into account. What often happens is that the resulting solution is not what an individual would expect, nor does it occur within the timescales we would like. And the bottom line is we do get what we pay for. Alas, I am not quite so sure that consumers always react as we would expect - people are often illogically fickle when it comes to spending money.
In this case it is clear that, statistically, things have changed. Is that not why these sort of reports are periodically compiled anyway? It does seem that there needs to be a review of the whole ergonomic situation in the cabin. Indeed, even as that review takes place a new compromise will be reached through CBA. Where is the cut-off on the distribution curve where we redefine the minimum seat pitch? Should the new minima apply retrospectively? Should we publish that anyone over a certain height does not meet this minima, old and/or new? Maybe we should? Do we go as far as some Theme Parks which clearly state "Height limitations exist on some rides"? Where does this line on telling people what is going on actually fall? I guess this is where you are coming from. Minima are actually generated to save people having to check if something is safe. Effectively, society does that for them through legislation. However, it will still only be safe for the X%ile. Your car will be the same. In this particular case, legislation needs a review. In addition, data may need to be made available but, again, where do we draw the line? Just how much information do the travelling public require? Wish I knew the answer! Clearly, something needs to be done, all we have to do is work out how much and what the cost is. Once again, our friends in Marketing may be able to advise us just how price-sensitive people are, even when Safety is discussed.
Finally, FPPF, I had to laugh at your comment about "only having one pilot on say a 737"! There are several breeds of Aviator who do not exist anymore today. Navigators were first out the Cockpit. Flight Engineers are now almost extinct and their loss to the cockpit is still debated to this very day. And, yes, their departure from their seats did/does reduce costs. Even the seats went! So, how much longer will Pilots exist? Now, before you decide that H 'n' H has lost it completely, I am sure Navs and FEs were deemed "indispensable" in their day! I am not saying our licences will be valueless in 10 years let alone 100, but I know there are Bean-counters out there who want us out. It's just that CBA is keeping us in there as they have not overcome all the issues - yet! And, on that cynical note, I, too, will step aside from the debate - with audible sighs of relief from the entire PPRruNe fraternity at that revelation! Like, FPPF, I do hope we get the changes right and that can only be helped by sensible lobbying by groups including the Press (the voice of reason?).
Regards, H 'n' H
I don't know about AA being revenue neutral with their increased seat pitch. It could be positive revenue. I'm going to San Diego next week - and because AA have a bigger seat pitch, they've got the business.
Even though I have a BA frequent flyer card.
Even though I have a BA frequent flyer card.
