Airline begins installation of Airbags
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here and there....currently here.
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
3 Posts
As a few others have said, they have been around for a while now. When Virgin Atlantic fitted the J class suite about 8 years ago they were all fitted with airbag belts. Also some front row economy seats have them as they are within a certain distance of a bulkhead. I seem to remember it came from the FAA for all newly certified types at the time (hence why the A345/6 got them) and had to be fitted in seats in proximity to bulkheads.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No lap children then
If the seatbelt has an airbag in it, you can't attach a child in a lap belt to it (because sitting children on explosive charges is considered unsafe). So if every seat in the aircraft has an airbag, no more lap children. So they'll need their own seat and a proper restraint seat or harness adapter, which will improve safety compared to lap children but irritate the parents who have to pay for a seat for any child of any age.
Moderator
Reading through the HowStuffWorks link, I would treat the reference to "soft" with some disdain. Bag deployment is the result of a solid explosive charge - the initial deployment blows the bag up hard with a big bang -this initial gas flow is the reason for most of the risks associated with bag slap injuries.
Another hazard which I didn't see noted was the production of caustic soda which is filtered out of contention. I recall the first sled test at CAMI overlooked this, left off the filters, and ended up like "White Christmas" with the players running for cover to the exits ...
If anything the inflated bag would impede rapid exit from the seats not next to the aisles.
Bags deflate very rapidly after the initial gas-generating explosion occurs. Not really a problem, I suggest.
Better and cheaper would be a shoulder strap as fitted in your car.
It is a misconception that the shoulder strap precludes head impact. Indeed, the harness generally does not achieve that, although the typical head impact speed is reduced significantly .. typical figures quoted are in the 50% range. With a combined restraint system of harness plus bag, the survivability outcomes increase significantly. For those interested, the relevant measure is HIC (Head Injury Criteria) which is a measure largely of brain injury probability and, hence, survivability. Very pertinent to typical high density airliner seating where headstrike to the seatback in front or a nearby bulkhead creates a significant risk.
Rearward facing seats would be a much cheaper and easier option.
Superficial view, I'm afraid. From a previous life's design, testing and certification of seats, the reality is somewhat more complex.
airbags will affect certified evacuation times.
Ought not to be the case, as the bags deflate very quickly. The hanging cover might provide a minor nuisance to egress but not so significant as to affect overall timings.
no more lap children
The child "held" by the parent is merely a missile-in-waiting in other than a fairly innocuous impact.
Another hazard which I didn't see noted was the production of caustic soda which is filtered out of contention. I recall the first sled test at CAMI overlooked this, left off the filters, and ended up like "White Christmas" with the players running for cover to the exits ...
If anything the inflated bag would impede rapid exit from the seats not next to the aisles.
Bags deflate very rapidly after the initial gas-generating explosion occurs. Not really a problem, I suggest.
Better and cheaper would be a shoulder strap as fitted in your car.
It is a misconception that the shoulder strap precludes head impact. Indeed, the harness generally does not achieve that, although the typical head impact speed is reduced significantly .. typical figures quoted are in the 50% range. With a combined restraint system of harness plus bag, the survivability outcomes increase significantly. For those interested, the relevant measure is HIC (Head Injury Criteria) which is a measure largely of brain injury probability and, hence, survivability. Very pertinent to typical high density airliner seating where headstrike to the seatback in front or a nearby bulkhead creates a significant risk.
Rearward facing seats would be a much cheaper and easier option.
Superficial view, I'm afraid. From a previous life's design, testing and certification of seats, the reality is somewhat more complex.
airbags will affect certified evacuation times.
Ought not to be the case, as the bags deflate very quickly. The hanging cover might provide a minor nuisance to egress but not so significant as to affect overall timings.
no more lap children
The child "held" by the parent is merely a missile-in-waiting in other than a fairly innocuous impact.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Near the Thames
Age: 79
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rearward facing seats - really the only way to go. The RAF did not 'just look into it' in the 50s every RAF airliner type transport - Britannia, Comet, VC10 etc - have had these fitted since I started flying in 1962. In addition USAF 141s (when in airevac role) and C5s (upper deck) also did this.
I was once told that the airlines rejected it because it would 'frighten the passengers' if they were sitting facing aft. In my experience most pax, after loading through a tunnel haven't a clue which way is the front anyway!
When you think about what this airbag is trying to achieve the rear facing seats do it all.
I was once told that the airlines rejected it because it would 'frighten the passengers' if they were sitting facing aft. In my experience most pax, after loading through a tunnel haven't a clue which way is the front anyway!
When you think about what this airbag is trying to achieve the rear facing seats do it all.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: england
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
type1106 said: Rearward facing seats - really the only way to go. The RAF did not 'just look into it' in the 50s every RAF airliner type transport - Britannia, Comet, VC10 etc - have had these fitted since I started flying in 1962. In addition USAF 141s (when in airevac role) and C5s (upper deck) also did this.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see on re-researching this topic that rules seem to vary in practice as to whether the seat belts with airbags allow child lap belts or not, previously I had found only prohibitions (eg Air NZ allows some) so I'll have to amend my previous prediction.
Moderator
Rearward facing seats - really the only way to go.
Problems -
(a) seat structure deflection characteristics under crash loads and associated limitations with occupant restraint. This is addressed without too much problem in design but with a weight penalty
(b) seat-floor/wall attachment fitting integrity under crash loads. This is a very major concern. Of interest, CAMI did some full scale tests years ago which showed that the widebodies did quite well in crash dynamics.
(c) real world problems associated with general airframe distortion affecting (b)
I don't have an antipathetic attitude to rear facers but they aren't the immediate panacea which some folk suggest.
I was once told that the airlines rejected it because it would 'frighten the passengers
Marketing hype and nonsense, I suggest.
what this airbag is trying to achieve the rear facing seats do it all.
Tell me your thoughts about missiles flying around the cabin during the crash sequence and your totally exposed head and upper torso in the rear facer .... ?
child restrained by a lap belt attached to the adult's belt
Nearly as bad as the child's being held by the parent.
Have you ever seen a movie of a sled test with particular interest in the dummy's articulated movement during the crash sequence ?
Now, my kids have long since grown up .. but I would NOT sit my kid on my lap restrained to my belt. If one is serious about the subject, one buys the extra seat and uses an automotive capsule/seat/booster as appropriate. The approval of the piggyback strap restraint is an attempt to address the problem without spending much in the way of dollars.
Problems -
(a) seat structure deflection characteristics under crash loads and associated limitations with occupant restraint. This is addressed without too much problem in design but with a weight penalty
(b) seat-floor/wall attachment fitting integrity under crash loads. This is a very major concern. Of interest, CAMI did some full scale tests years ago which showed that the widebodies did quite well in crash dynamics.
(c) real world problems associated with general airframe distortion affecting (b)
I don't have an antipathetic attitude to rear facers but they aren't the immediate panacea which some folk suggest.
I was once told that the airlines rejected it because it would 'frighten the passengers
Marketing hype and nonsense, I suggest.
what this airbag is trying to achieve the rear facing seats do it all.
Tell me your thoughts about missiles flying around the cabin during the crash sequence and your totally exposed head and upper torso in the rear facer .... ?
child restrained by a lap belt attached to the adult's belt
Nearly as bad as the child's being held by the parent.
Have you ever seen a movie of a sled test with particular interest in the dummy's articulated movement during the crash sequence ?
Now, my kids have long since grown up .. but I would NOT sit my kid on my lap restrained to my belt. If one is serious about the subject, one buys the extra seat and uses an automotive capsule/seat/booster as appropriate. The approval of the piggyback strap restraint is an attempt to address the problem without spending much in the way of dollars.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Near the Thames
Age: 79
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Yes, I quite agree there is a weight penalty in this seat configuration but I am led to believe this is quite small.
The upper torso and head are protected to a great extent by the seats used in the military types I have flown because the seat back is much higher than in a forward facer - the effect on the perceived space in the cabin is quite noticeable when you board.
I agree wholeheartedly about the child restrained by the adult's seatbelt - sheer madness IMHO
Yes, I quite agree there is a weight penalty in this seat configuration but I am led to believe this is quite small.
The upper torso and head are protected to a great extent by the seats used in the military types I have flown because the seat back is much higher than in a forward facer - the effect on the perceived space in the cabin is quite noticeable when you board.
I agree wholeheartedly about the child restrained by the adult's seatbelt - sheer madness IMHO
Moderator
there is a weight penalty in this seat configuration but I am led to believe this is quite small.
Depends on whether one is interested in achieving the minimum certification requirement or actually achieving something a little more useful. Might I ask who has led you to believe your belief ?
Having been, for my sins in the past, involved in initial design, test and certification as well as rework to make a forward facer acceptable for rearward facing installation, the seat back deflection under crash loads is the problem concern I am citing.
the seat back is much higher than in a forward facer
same requirement for the civil aft facer although, in the civil example, one tends to see the minimum requirement addressed by the use of a tall(er) headrest, either integral to the seat (for the permanent aft facer installation) or removable (for the fwd/aft facer design).
Depends on whether one is interested in achieving the minimum certification requirement or actually achieving something a little more useful. Might I ask who has led you to believe your belief ?
Having been, for my sins in the past, involved in initial design, test and certification as well as rework to make a forward facer acceptable for rearward facing installation, the seat back deflection under crash loads is the problem concern I am citing.
the seat back is much higher than in a forward facer
same requirement for the civil aft facer although, in the civil example, one tends to see the minimum requirement addressed by the use of a tall(er) headrest, either integral to the seat (for the permanent aft facer installation) or removable (for the fwd/aft facer design).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southern
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've had these installed in the last 12 months with minimal fanfare or detail from the company.
A couple of questions from the Cabin Crew side of things, to which I appreciate your thoughts!
- Should this affect the brace positions that the pax should adopt?
- What sort of an obstruction might deflated airbags pose, if any, to an evacuation, considering they're predominantly installed in exit rows?
- What is the angle or force of projection of the airbags, considering that crew stations often face airbagged seats, 2 feet away?
I'm sure the company will nut all of this out eventually, but maybe a prod in the right direction before something goes down might be in order!
A couple of questions from the Cabin Crew side of things, to which I appreciate your thoughts!
- Should this affect the brace positions that the pax should adopt?
- What sort of an obstruction might deflated airbags pose, if any, to an evacuation, considering they're predominantly installed in exit rows?
- What is the angle or force of projection of the airbags, considering that crew stations often face airbagged seats, 2 feet away?
I'm sure the company will nut all of this out eventually, but maybe a prod in the right direction before something goes down might be in order!
Moderator
Should this affect the brace positions that the pax should adopt?
Brace positions consider
(a) consequential impact
(b) protection from flying objects
For (a), with a rear facer, anything other than erect and supported by the seat back is probably a bit silly
For (b) the rear facer is a problem, period.
What sort of an obstruction might deflated airbags pose, if any, to an evacuation, considering they're predominantly installed in exit rows?
The bag deflates rapidly and is not dissimilar to having a lightweight carry bag attached to the structure. Effect on an evacuation should be minimal, I suspect, although I haven't either witnessed or read any papers on such evacuations.
What is the angle or force of projection of the airbags, considering that crew stations often face airbagged seats, 2 feet away?
This risk consideration should be addressed rationally in a sled test for current standard seats as the value of the bag is in HIC reduction. Clearances will depend on restraint system (full harness, lap-sash, lap only) and the crash load dummy articulation during the bag deployment sequence. Having said that I don't have any data on what the after market installation programs are doing.
Brace positions consider
(a) consequential impact
(b) protection from flying objects
For (a), with a rear facer, anything other than erect and supported by the seat back is probably a bit silly
For (b) the rear facer is a problem, period.
What sort of an obstruction might deflated airbags pose, if any, to an evacuation, considering they're predominantly installed in exit rows?
The bag deflates rapidly and is not dissimilar to having a lightweight carry bag attached to the structure. Effect on an evacuation should be minimal, I suspect, although I haven't either witnessed or read any papers on such evacuations.
What is the angle or force of projection of the airbags, considering that crew stations often face airbagged seats, 2 feet away?
This risk consideration should be addressed rationally in a sled test for current standard seats as the value of the bag is in HIC reduction. Clearances will depend on restraint system (full harness, lap-sash, lap only) and the crash load dummy articulation during the bag deployment sequence. Having said that I don't have any data on what the after market installation programs are doing.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: wales
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
BA citiexpress had airbags fitted to the front row of seats of their J41s over 10 years ago, these were being tested and were fitted due to close proximity of the bulkheads infront of the pax.
BA citiexpress had airbags fitted to the front row of seats of their J41s over 10 years ago, these were being tested and were fitted due to close proximity of the bulkheads infront of the pax.
