> Neither victim was using her seatbelt. It is likely that these passengers would have remained in the cabin and survived if they had been wearing their seatbelts
They save people from serious injury much more frequently than that. Extreme turbulence that can smash you against the ceiling happens not infrequently.
The article claims that "the primary goal of an aircraft seatbelt is not to save your life if the plane crashes; in that unlikely event, there’s not much in the way of conventional safety gear that would help you", which is too fatalistic. For example, in the crash of United 232 [1], 185 people (nearly two in three of those aboard) survived. It seems unlikely that anyone not strapped in would have done so.
Or look at the Asiana crash in San Francisco. One of the fatalities was thrown out of the plane and then crushed by a fire truck. I believe that was a seat belt failure, but how many others were kept safely in the plane because theirs worked?
I wonder where this idea came from that plane crashes are essentially unsurvivable. It’s not even remotely close to correct!
On HN recommendation, a couple of years ago I read "Beyond the Black Box: The Forensics of Airplane Crashes" by George Bibel. It's a book-length survey, from an engineering point of view, of the processes that cause crashes, and how they are tracked down and their root cause addressed.
One of the messages of the book, repeated several times at various places, is that most crashes are survivable. Even the crashes that result in total loss of the aircraft tend to have significant numbers of survivors.
One number from the Kindle preview is that, of the 53K passengers and crew on the 568 accidents on U.S. commercial craft from 1983-2000, there were 2280 fatalities (4.3%). This includes "severe turbulence" incidents as well as total-loss incidents, contributing to the low 4.3% figure.
But still, over the same time period, of those 568 accidents, there were 26 "serious" accidents involving 2739 people, and about 55% of them survived. 19 of the accidents had some survivors, 7 did not. Of the 19, 66% of casualties were from trauma. Which would indicate that wearing the seat belt is a very good idea.
The book has more statistics and breakdowns that point in a similar direction.
> Neither victim was using her seatbelt. It is likely that these passengers would have remained in the cabin and survived if they had been wearing their seatbelts
> They were not found in early cars, and remained at best
> an option in certain forward-thinking automaker lines,
> most notably Saab, until the late 1950s.
Volvo should be of similar notability, since they were the ones who introduced the three-point seat belt (in 1959) and made the patent available for free to other car makers. [1]
So the article basically says that until there is a crash and someone sues the airlines and/or manufacturers because a loved one provably died when a three point harness would have saved their life, this isn't going to change. The damage award from the lawsuit would have to exceed the cost of upgrading to three point harnesses to change the calculus.
Such a lawsuit is unlikely to happen at this point because air travel has become so ridiculously safe that airliners never crash anymore, especially in the US.
And it seems unlikely that the added benefit of a three point harness would be the difference between life and death or injury and safety. If an airplane is crashing it's typically with enough impact that a three point harness won't save you.
That's a myth. Most airplane crashes are survivable, they just don't garner any media attention. In most cases, the planes don't just nosedive into the ground, they veer off the runway or crash into obstacles while on the ground.
Am I the only one who wants a five point harness so I can lean forward into the harness and sleep in my chair? I currently use the tray table for this and it's less than optimal.
Maybe we can just sit in the chair, get a catheter inserted, and then be covered in an expanding foam that would completely seal us into the seat and make sure that we could finally get the sleep we deserve (and probably have no issue surving a devastating plane crash on land with no injury at all... assuming we had a good way to get out of the foam once we noticed the plan had crashed before the foam caught on fire).
Indeed they help you most often during turbulence, I think that's more common than a crash. I was traveling recently with my 2 children, 1 and 2.5 yr old. When the child is over 2 he needs to stay on his own seat, but the seat belt does not shrink to the size of the child. I think it was at least 10cm loose and they refused to give us a baby seatbelt because of rules. Simply stupid, with all the safety measures that you have in a plane why is this being overlooked?
This is a little surprising to me since all of the airline seatbelts I've ever seen could be pulled right up against the seat by pulling far enough on the loose end. Are you saying the buckle hit the end of the strap before the kid was fully secured?
By baby seatbelt, do you mean the tethering restraint that tethers the infant to an adult? AFAIU, American domestic airlines won't provide those tethering devices as there's a difference of opinion on efficacy in the global industry. Some international airlines provide them, but arguably they're largely a feelgood measure and perhaps outright dangerous. (Which is better, smashing into the ceiling or being violently whipped around at the waist?) Which isn't to say we haven't used them on international flights, even when we had a baby seat ;)
It's FAA approved and no airline will give you trouble for using it. I think some airlines (international if not domestic) provide this if you give them a heads-up during check-in, but it's less hassle to bring your own.
I get the speculation that we might be better off with three- or five-point harnesses, but I don't get the complaints about the design of the belt and buckle itself. It's bad because it's out of style or something?
I can't think of a more user-friendly solution to the problem it's actually trying to solve. I wouldn't trade the reel system with low profile plastic-encased push-button buckles in my car for it, but I'm not interested in digging around between the cushions for whatever proprietary design the particular cabin manufacturer of the plane I'm on has come up with, I want something standard that's right in front of me in plain view. And I don't want a reel system either. Every reel system made for public use I've seen has had way too much friction and way too little spring tension to even make sense. And not being able to see the state of the belt and reel tensioning doesn't seem very safe either.
There's another reason for having belts that they don't mention: body identification. If bodies are still strapped to seats they at least have a chance of determining where to send which remains. Without, it'd be nigh on impossible, which would be a compounding PR nightmare on top of the obvious PR nightmare of an aviation disaster.
Source is my mum, who was an air stewardess for a decade, and explained this to me when I questioned the purpose (she also mentioned turbulence etc., as the article does).
What always puzzles me are those seat-belt extenders. I've seen passengers on planes that probably couldn't fit through an overwing exit door without getting stuck. Think how dangerous that could be! The seatbelts should be long enough to accomodate the largest passenger who can safely fit in a seat (and I'm pretty sure they are -- they're already huge) and there should be no extenders.
Apparently when there are issues with a belt, they just cut it off and reattach the clip. So belts can vary fairly widely (see what I did there?) in terms of size, and sometimes you have a relatively medium-sized person who runs into a really short belt and needs an extender.
Definitely safer, but it would require seat manufacturers and aircraft interiors to re-design all of their products. This is probably part of the "passengers won't like it" excuse (lobby?). An aft-facing seat back would be very different structurally from a forward-facing seat back, the former absorbing impact load from a face slamming into it (current seat backs are designed to crumple/absorb load in a crash). When it comes down to it, a three point seat belt is probably cheaper to integrate on all economy seats if the FAA starts requiring improved passenger safety, as opposed to throwing years of crash test research, engineering, and products out the window and starting from scratch. The industry is pretty entrenched in forward-facing seating.
I'm jammed in so tight on almost all economy seats that there'd have to be some serious turbulence to unseat me. Even if the plane flipped completely, I'd move about four inches until I hit the overhead storage bins...
Everything about air travel is a comedy of the absurd, and being admonished to buckle up is just one more thing in the pile.
Yes, your head would hit the overhead bin after 4 inches. Unfortunately, your body would do that inertia thing and continue, folding you tightly somewhere along your neck.
This has happened, not just during crashes but far more often with turbulences.
Regarding economy class: this is simply the result of people‘s preferences, as expressed by their buying choices. With all the complaints you can hear and read, you’d think those exit seats or economy+ tickets would sell like fresh bread. But every time I check in online, even when most seats are gone, most of the exit seats (about twice the leg room for 20$ extra) are still available.
> Regarding economy class: this is simply the result of people‘s preferences, as expressed by their buying choices
If you take something away first, then nobody can buy it, you can then say "look, nobody's buying it!".
For example: for the past 5-6 years EU airlines have made intra-europe business class much more like economy class. BA used to have 34" pitch in short-haul business. That went I think 3 years ago. But I'd be willing to pay up to £500 for that now. Can I buy it? No - the majority airlines have done the same.
It's now very easy for BA/Lufthansa/Air France/Iberia etc to say "that's what our customers wanted" because you can't now pay for it even if you want it.
The comment you’re replying to has an example of a universally available option for more room that few people actually take, so I really don’t think your explanation works.
While I appreciate the agony of economy class these days (I am a frequent flier in cattle class), I think this is a disingenuous statement about buckling up and I'm not sure why you felt you had to make it.
In abnormally heavy turbulence, you will be tossed around to the point of injury if you are not buckled up. 4 inches is enough to damage your vital organs.
There was a flight to Hawaii where the roof ripped off and everyone saved except for 1 airline stewardess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
> All the passengers were in their seats and belted during depressurization.
And the crash in SF where two people were ejected from their seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214
> Neither victim was using her seatbelt. It is likely that these passengers would have remained in the cabin and survived if they had been wearing their seatbelts