Boeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1037 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14579 times:
Quoting BA747 (Thread starter): Hi, I was wondering instead of the seat belt that one have to adjust, why airlines don´t put the car type?
weight and cost. the reels for the seat belts weight about 2 pounds more than a normal seat belt. Also is take 5 mintues to change a seat belt now, with a reel it would take longer and would casue delays on turn arounds.
WN700Driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14569 times:
Not 100% sure, but I'll make like OJ and take a stab at it. It probably has something to do with the fact that seat belts are more to keep you from banging your head into the overhead or PSU's (during severe turbulence or rough landings) than keep you alive through a wreck. Even on our deminuative Dash 8-300s, in a collision at speeds of over 180 per, belts wont do much for you, inertia or otherwise.
Edit: The shoulder straps up front (Pilots, observer's and FA's) are inertia types. But only the shoulder parts. The lap sections are still the manually tightening type. Can't believe I forgot that.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14461 times:
It seems to me the seat belts are there for if the aircraft plunges (like the Qantas A330) to keep people in their seats, I can't really imagine any type of seatbelt keeping passengers alive in an actual crash
Not more important, but when safety is equal, you don't go for more weight and less reliability. An inertia reel isn't really safer than a regular airplane belt, if you're wearing the airplane belt properly.
Also, there is *always* a tradeoff between cost (weight, reliability, etc.) and safety. This rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but it's true. You could make airplanes much safer than they are, but it would drive the cost of flying so high that nobody could afford it, so there's no point. It's the same reason that the FAA doesn't mandate that all AD's be done right away, even though they have that power.
Crjfixer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14375 times:
The Crew seatbelts on most aircraft are the inertia type, but not for the pax. And as DL767 said the seatbelts are mainly for turbulence and the like. In an actual crash a seatbelt wont help much no matter what type sadly.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8298 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 14301 times:
The functions of a car seat belt and an airlimne passenger seat belt are entirely different.
A car seat belt is designed to minimise injury when the car is in a full head-on crash. If you have a full head-on crash in an aircraft . . .
An aircraft seat belt is designed to minimise injury during severe turbulance (be it turbulance caused by a natural atmospheric phenomena, by aircraft performance or relatively low stability during take-off and landing).
Hence the requirement is to wear a car seat belt whenever the car is in motion. But airliners are fitted with "fasten seat belt" signs as it is not required to wear them at all times that the aircraft is in motion.
Clearly if fitting lap belts instead of inertia chest belts is a cost saving exercise designed to save installation costs and weight then the airlines are missing a lot of opportunities. Why go to the bother and cost of fitting the seat-belt signs when they could save that cost and weight simply with a safety instruction card that told the passengers to keep belted up at all times?
Other possible cost savings they could consider would the cost and weight saving of getting rid of WCs and galleys. If passengers had to remain belted-up at all times when the aircraft was in motion they clearly could not use the WCs and serving food and drink during a flight would cause passengers significant problems. So would we need FAs? Or is their safety unimportant? After all if they and the passengers had to remain belted-up throughout the flight what would they do?
Yes. It is all prertty ridiculous. But think about it. Is it any less ridiculous than suggesting airlines are putting cost savings before passenger safety by using lap belts and not inertia reel chest belts?
And a final thought. You are in an airliner and wearing an inertia reel, car-type, crash (not safety) belt. The aircraft is in trouble and is going to crash land. So what do you have to do? First you release the seat belt catch. Only then can you adopt the position recommended by all airlines' safety cards in the event of a crash. So your inertia reel belt would actually be a safety hazzard as on impact you will now be thrown about the cabin.
TZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1478 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 14184 times:
Quoting WN700Driver (Reply 6): It probably has something to do with the fact that seat belts are more to keep you from banging your head into the overhead or PSU's (during severe turbulence or rough landings) than keep you alive through a wreck. Even on our deminuative Dash 8-300s, in a collision at speeds of over 180 per, belts wont do much for you, inertia or otherwise.
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 7): It seems to me the seat belts are there for if the aircraft plunges (like the Qantas A330) to keep people in their seats, I can't really imagine any type of seatbelt keeping passengers alive in an actual crash
Quoting VV701 (Reply 11): An aircraft seat belt is designed to minimise injury during severe turbulance (be it turbulance caused by a natural atmospheric phenomena, by aircraft performance or relatively low stability during take-off and landing).
While this may seem logical, this is not true. Airline seat belts are designed to regulations to restrain a 50th percentile male in the seat to the same crash and/or dynamic conditions as the seat itself (e.g. a 9g seat requires a 9g seat belt and a 16g seat requires a 16g seat belt). They are dynamically tested with and considered an integral part of the seat and must also meet TSO C22. Seat belts are really designed for crash conditions along with the seats and anything else in the passenger cabin as this is the most critical.
I can recall that mandatory seat belt use used to be only during takeoff and landing, but about a decade or so ago with the increase in turbulence related injuries, airlines have been requiring them more during flight. FAR 121 only requires a seat and seat belt be available for each occupant, but is only required to be secured during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
I don't. In fact I don't see how they could be. Inertia types are designed to reel and unreel seat belt fabric for comfort while locking for safety as required. If they fail to reel it in or lock, the belt won't hold and if they fail to reel it out the belt will become too tight. There are just too many moving parts to be as reliable, therefore safe, as the belt now being used.
WNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1533 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 13936 times:
Also, aircraft seats aren't designed to stay stationary (like that in a car) but they are designed to collapse and to be impacted by the human body. Were you to install an inertia reel seatbelt or shoulder harness-strap on an aircraft seat, the seatbelt would pull the seat with it instead of letting it do it's job of absorbing the impact of the occupant behind you. This is something I learned from my FAA training.
When pax say "Why do you get the harness and we just get the seatbelt?" I just say 'We can hardly get you to wear the seatbelt, muchless a harness..." They usually realize my point and smile. I find it funny that pax get up when they see FA's get up regardless of turbulence OR the seatbelt sign, yet FA's stay buckled until taxi-in and Seatbelt sign is extinguished and pax unbuckle as SOON as we land...huh
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
LarSPL From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13751 times:
i don't know why the safety card is played here.
even on a car seat belt the part around the middle is not inertia.
only the shoulder is an inertia system.
that inertia system is there because if you would have a belt around your shoulder which would not give in during a crash it would lead to more damage than an inertia belt (because of the inertia lock the amount of crash force is absorbed by the inertia reel.).
however: you dont want your waist to move during a crash nore is the inertia system necessary at the waist.
the crash position in aircraft for pax is designed to do the same as a inertia reel; absorbe the crash force.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 22168 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13391 times:
Quoting Overcast (Reply 4): I think Inertia Seat Belts are good at locking in a certain plane, i.e. They will lock when you hit a wall. But not that good if the car gets drops 20 feet vertically.
Depends on the type. There is one kind of reel that locks if it starts to spin too quickly. So that would not depend on direction of force, just the force.
But that reel is heavier. And if you need the seatbelt to be a bit looser, just loosen it.
For those of you talking about crashes, a seatbelt is worthless when a machine made of thin aluminum hits the ground or water at a few hundred MPH. That's not what it's for.
It's to keep you from getting thrown around the cabin in a sudden extreme maneuver or during turbulence. That's why you should keep it on at all times. I've definitely been on some flights where the seatbelt was the only thing holding me in my seat.
Now, someone needs to throw a few million dollars at a grant to figure out why turbulence ONLY seems to happen 30 seconds AFTER you have been served hot coffee.
Voar From Canada, joined Jul 2008, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12940 times:
Seat belts on newer piston aircraft are generally of the inertial type for all occupants, so not sure about the weight argument. Some manufacturers even have airbags on the seat belts for increased protection.
I would think that on an airliner an inertial type seat belt would not be comfortable for passengers as it always is pressing against you, would make it harder to sleep for example. On a light aircraft that is not possible, passengers have to sit upright all the time.
Guth From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12155 times:
I used to fly a Cessna 172R that had inertia reel belts. They were most annoying. As the belts aged they started to fray and would get caught up in the retraction mechanism. Just before I stopped flying the plane I would have to stick my fingers into the reel every time and manually rotate it to get the belt to retract or unlock or do anything.
I say keep the old style belts as the inertia reel type aren't worth the hassle.