Aircraft life jackets

Most of the lj's I've seen for use in light aircraft are the simple manual inflation type; NOT auto, as one doesn't want the thing going off when you're still inside.

Bog standard Crewsaver etc, just with an extra £ zero or two 'cos they're in an aviation catalogue !
 
macd said:
Perhaps more to the point, if the airlines listened to the experts and fitted rear-facing seats, air travel might be a little safer (and galadriel's good looks might be less in peril). And, yes, I know it's marvellously safe already.
Click to expand...

The first airline to turn their seats round would be the first to go bust.
 
Turning the seats round would certainly increase safety as fewer people would fly.
We could apply the same logic to cars and busses before worrying about the safest form of transport.
 
There's a great deal more to rear facing seats than just fitting them. Major redesign of aircraft floors, exits and probably other structures would be required. Is it really practical to ask Boeing and Airbus to design an aircraft no airline will buy due to the excess cost? The public would probably vote with their feet and anyway it seems the advantages are perhaps not as well proven as is often assumed.

As the following article says, you can do one of two things. Get lucky or do some planning. Those that wish to are welcome to remain pointlessly kissing their @rses goodbye, others will take a more rational view and make a difference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4269453/How-to-survive-a-plane-crash.html
 
teredo said:
Extraordinary how some lay-people feel more qualified to judge such things than the experts.

Galadriel, you just sit there bolt upright and get your face smashed into the seatback in front of you, the rest of us aren't that daft. Sadly one of us may even have to hazard our safety, even our life, to drag you out because through your own irresponsibility you now can't manage it yourself.

How is a lifejacket even remotely comparable to a seatbelt on a motorcycle? If you end up in the oggin you'll be needing a lj and I guess you'd be pretty vocal if you thought you needed one and it wasn't there...

Perhaps, if you actually thought about it, you'd see the point of both. After all, they are simply there to give you a better chance of survival.
Click to expand...

Blimey! Listen to you!! Can you honestly say (seeing you must have some knowledge of this) that if you find yourself in the water that an aircraft LJ would actually keep you afloat, after all we know (as boat owners) about crutch straps etc?

How many aircraft have crashed and people walked away as a result of using the brace position? What is that number (assuming any exist) compared to the number of aircraft (very small I grant you) which have crashed, killing all aboard.

Life jackets and the other safety stuff on an aircraft is only there to make you feel 'safe', When an aircraft crashes there is only likely to be one outcome, accept it.
 
For this reason I go for the aft facing seats on trains, on the rare occasions I'm unfortunate enough to travel that way.

Yes it would require engineering the floors & mounts as well.

I imagine even airline seats must have a little crash resilience designed in nowadays; military helicopters for instance have shock absorbers and collapsible structures to aid crash survival.

Before anyone says that's just the military, some Ribs & speedboats + racing powerboats have this.

Maybe a few crash test dummy films might convince more of the public that aft facing airliner seats are a good idea; I don't think Joe Public is as daft as some here like to think.
 
galadriel said:
Blimey! Listen to you!! Can you honestly say (seeing you must have some knowledge of this) that if you find yourself in the water that an aircraft LJ would actually keep you afloat, after all we know (as boat owners) about crutch straps etc?

How many aircraft have crashed and people walked away as a result of using the brace position? What is that number (assuming any exist) compared to the number of aircraft (very small I grant you) which have crashed, killing all aboard.

Life jackets and the other safety stuff on an aircraft is only there to make you feel 'safe', When an aircraft crashes there is only likely to be one outcome, accept it.
Click to expand...

Galadriel, I can only say how sorry I feel for you. It must be hard to bear such a grudge against society. What is doubly sad is that people like you mindlessly spout such nonsensical drivel and thereby influence others who may be of equally deludable nature. It doesn't help the progress of civilisation one jot.

It is such a shame that some people make such idiotic and unsupportable statements out of pure blind pig- ignorance, unless you are a troll which is equally unpleasant.
Life jackets and the other safety stuff on an aircraft is only there to make you feel 'safe', When an aircraft crashes there is only likely to be one outcome, accept it.
Click to expand...
This must be one of the top ten most idiotic statements ever made on any internet forum, all the more so after I posted the Telegraph link above. I've not been here long enough to know if you are a brainless troll or just a complete contentious imbecile. Neither impress me, nor, I suspect, anyone else.
 
Buck Turgidson said:
Turning the seats round would certainly increase safety as fewer people would fly.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

While I can readily believe that some people might shun an airline with only rear-facing seats in favour of a competitor, I find it harder to accept that people would stop travelling by air if all seats were rear-facing. (And, anyway, if they did stop travelling by air it would only increase overall safety if they stayed at home rather than opting for other, less safe, modes of transport.)
 
Seajet said:
Do the RAF passenger transports still have rear facing seats ? I know they used to and it always seemed commendable to me.
Click to expand...

RAF VC10 used to, not sure if the civvie ones used to as well. Oiks don't complain, especially if it's taking you somewhere sunny with duty-free or back home after detachment (used to be called the big white gozomie bird when waiting for it to come and take you home) - having said did find it a little wierd. Scalie wives and kids didn't like facing backwards though, especially as the RAF ones used to accelerate quite hard and climb at a fair angle.

Best bit was getting everyone to gradually move forwards during a long trip and then all move aft and then all move forwards again. Pilots always took a little while to cotton on to what was happening to the trim.

I think people generally don't like travelling backwards - the forward facing train seats always seem to go first.
 
Seajet said:
I imagine even airline seats must have a little crash resilience designed in nowadays; military helicopters for instance have shock absorbers and collapsible structures to aid crash survival.
Click to expand...

It's a comment I've heard before that airliners are 40g bodies in 9g seats. The 40g for a human to survive is obviously for a pretty short time - I've no idea whether the 9g is shock loading or sustained, or what the shock loading is if it's sustained. A healthy person could survive 9g for a while, albeit while probably unconscious. As you no doubt are well aware fit, trained pilots can handle 5 or 6 g comparatively comfortably for a while without g-suits and aero pilots often go to 9g in specialist a/c such as Extra's.
 
teredo said:
Galadriel, I can only say how sorry I feel for you. It must be hard to bear such a grudge against society. What is doubly sad is that people like you mindlessly spout such nonsensical drivel and thereby influence others who may be of equally deludable nature. It doesn't help the progress of civilisation one jot.

It is such a shame that some people make such idiotic and unsupportable statements out of pure blind pig- ignorance, unless you are a troll which is equally unpleasant.

This must be one of the top ten most idiotic statements ever made on any internet forum, all the more so after I posted the Telegraph link above. I've not been here long enough to know if you are a brainless troll or just a complete contentious imbecile. Neither impress me, nor, I suspect, anyone else.
Click to expand...

Well, you seem to be first class at dishing out personal insults without backing up anything you say yourself. "A grudge against society"???? WTF!

I asked you quite a reasonable question given your claimed greater knowledge:

"How many aircraft have crashed and people walked away as a result of using the brace position? What is that number (assuming any exist) compared to the number of aircraft (very small I grant you) which have crashed, killing all aboard."

I asked this in a polite manner without the insults you are so fond of. So come on, answer the question, dont hide behind bad manners, educate instead.
 
grumpy_o_g said:
I think people generally don't like travelling backwards - the forward facing train seats always seem to go first.
Click to expand...

Though swapping over (if room) does allow you to play with the effect whereby the station you are stopped at seems to creep past in the opposite direction to the recent direction of movement...

Mike.
 
Twister_Ken said:
Easy to make people accept rear-facing seats. Start by putting rear-facing into first class. Within a very short time cattle class would be demanding them too.
Click to expand...

Quite a few airlines do have a mix of fwd and aft facing seats in business. The privacy benefit is what makes it acceptable to clients. Plus the ability to choose a fwd facing seat if you book early enough.
In cattle class, all the surveys Ive read were heavily against rear facing seats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top