safe seat
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
G
Beacon Outbound
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 710
Likes: 22
From: "Home is were the answer machine is"
Maybe none of us are understanding fully what altalhi is actually trying to ask. Is there such a thing as 'the safe seat'. I believe statistically you have a better survival change in the back, but there are always exceptions as Genghis points out. But maybe this is not what altalhi is trying to find out.
Altalhi, would you care to elaborate?
Altalhi, would you care to elaborate?
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, USA
In terms of seat design, it probably is the rear-facing flight attendant jumpseat, so long as the harnesses are properly worn.
The FAA 16G survival rule will help ensure that more people survive in a crash. Don't be surprised to see more seats have air-bags in the seat-belts too!
The FAA 16G survival rule will help ensure that more people survive in a crash. Don't be surprised to see more seats have air-bags in the seat-belts too!
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
Well, for myself personally, the only safe seat is the one I occupy on a regular basis...the left hand seat, where I can get my grubby hands on the levers and switches...and of course, the pole.
Now, for the self loading freight, I would think that the safest seat, from a survivability standpoint, would be the one where the greatest structure is located, and this is over the wing.
Now, for the self loading freight, I would think that the safest seat, from a survivability standpoint, would be the one where the greatest structure is located, and this is over the wing.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
From: Malta
lollll I always trust my Captain 
Are you saying over the wing (not outside I hope
) cause in case of a bad accident, there are overwing emergency exits or cause it is the strongest part, which breaks -statistically speaking- less than other and (my own supposition) has less important cables which can take fire?
It can sound silly, but I got to reassure my sister who's terribly scared of flying
Are you saying over the wing (not outside I hope
) cause in case of a bad accident, there are overwing emergency exits or cause it is the strongest part, which breaks -statistically speaking- less than other and (my own supposition) has less important cables which can take fire?It can sound silly, but I got to reassure my sister who's terribly scared of flying
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
Yes, over the wing, due to the structure available.
In the event of a fuel spill, the seating location really is unimportant...where it goes is where it will burn.
Many times this is aft of the wing.
In the event of a fuel spill, the seating location really is unimportant...where it goes is where it will burn.
Many times this is aft of the wing.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 1
From: Europe
An exception which is the opposite to Genghis', is the Delta Tristar in Dallas (1985) that went down due to microburst conditions. The detonation after impact blasted the tail section backwards and all the survivors (who avoided the conflagration that destroyed the front half) were there.
Maybe altalhi you should look for the "lucky" seat instead
Maybe altalhi you should look for the "lucky" seat instead
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: Southern California (KVCV)
If an aircraft crashes there is not really a "safe seat" some may be safer than others but, it all depends on how the plane crashes there are so many variables that affect where the best seat is. I was watching a show and it showed that the rear facing seats is the worst place to be if a plane crashed nose first. I forget what angles they used when testing the rear facing seat. 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
From: 10 west
do'nt know about now ( i suspect the equipment ...world/ata/and others ...used to transport troops to iraq is the same as any other plane these days...but , when i grew up trans atlantic carrier seaboard and western who transported american servicemen and women to / from germany had to the best of my recollection seats facing backwards...on the basis i suppose that on sudden maximum deceleration , you were better of having the seat to protect you than being thrown against your seatbelt causing possible internal injuries....
but then at the speed that superconnies travelled more accidents were surviveable anyway compared to to-days speeds.
experience has shown that the travelling public do not like to travel backwards.
i did it once in..i think it was a bac 111. there were a few club seats as far as i recall...and i did'nt like it...
i do'nt even like it on a train..
seems something disorientating about focusing your eyes on an object the is going away as opposed to towards you...
agree with jgossett...very much a matter of luck and the method of impact. time and time again we have seen maybe an entire aircraft destroyed..all killed with one or two unbelieveable exceptions..why..??
go figure...
the dean.
but then at the speed that superconnies travelled more accidents were surviveable anyway compared to to-days speeds.
experience has shown that the travelling public do not like to travel backwards.
i did it once in..i think it was a bac 111. there were a few club seats as far as i recall...and i did'nt like it...
i do'nt even like it on a train..
seems something disorientating about focusing your eyes on an object the is going away
as opposed to towards you...agree with jgossett...very much a matter of luck and the method of impact. time and time again we have seen maybe an entire aircraft destroyed..all killed with one or two unbelieveable exceptions..why..??
go figure...
the dean.
