Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?Why don't airlines provide smoke hoods?Why do you have to keep your seat belt fastened after landing?Why were the TWA TriStar middle seats smaller than the aisle seats?Is there research being done on light aircraft safety that involves a comprehensive flight protection system that adresses all risks?Why aren't the passenger seats designed as jump seats (foldable) in commercial airlines?Could a golf ball damage an airliner?Why do airlines require passengers to return to their allocated seats for landing?What are the technical details of how airline seats are installed on an airliner?Where are the black triangle'd seats?Why don’t aircraft use run-flat tyres?

What does "function" actually mean in music?

How long after the last departure shall the airport stay open for an emergency return?

Who's the random kid standing in the gathering at the end?

What is this word supposed to be?

How can I wire a 9-position switch so that each position turns on one more LED than the one before?

Why is the underscore command _ useful?

Can someone publish a story that happened to you?

Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?

How to not starve gigantic beasts

Can a level 2 Warlock take one level in rogue, then continue advancing as a warlock?

Should the Product Owner dictate what info the UI needs to display?

How bug prioritization works in agile projects vs non agile

A strange hotel

Older movie/show about humans on derelict alien warship which refuels by passing through a star

"Whatever a Russian does, they end up making the Kalashnikov gun"? Are there any similar proverbs in English?

Partitioning values in a sequence

Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?

Is there a better way to say "see someone's dreams"?

Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?

Is it acceptable to use working hours to read general interest books?

Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?

What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?

What was Apollo 13's "Little Jolt" after MECO?

Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?



Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?


Why don't airlines provide smoke hoods?Why do you have to keep your seat belt fastened after landing?Why were the TWA TriStar middle seats smaller than the aisle seats?Is there research being done on light aircraft safety that involves a comprehensive flight protection system that adresses all risks?Why aren't the passenger seats designed as jump seats (foldable) in commercial airlines?Could a golf ball damage an airliner?Why do airlines require passengers to return to their allocated seats for landing?What are the technical details of how airline seats are installed on an airliner?Where are the black triangle'd seats?Why don’t aircraft use run-flat tyres?













1












$begingroup$


Virtually all first-class airline seats, and many to most business-class seats, recline all the way down, either as lie-flat seats (where the seat reclines to a 180º seatback-seatpan angle, but the fully-reclined seat is still tilted somewhat forwards relative to the cabin floor) or flat-bed seats (where the seat reclines to a truly flat surface that can also, as the name indicates, serve as a bed).



These seats are, of course, equipped with seatbelts, but I’m having great trouble seeing how even a tightly-fastened seatbelt would provide any protection to a flat-lying occupant, as any significant longitudinal force would cause the occupant of the seat to slide under the belt and out of the seat.12



Although these seats, like all airline passenger seats, are required to be locked in the fully-upright position except in cruise flight, this still leaves the occupants (especially those in flat-bed seats) vulnerable during the (sometimes quite long) portion of the flight when they are allowed to recline their seats to flatness; a moderate head-on (or tail-on, for that matter) gust would be enough to separate these occupants from their fully-reclined seats, as would any other event capable of suddenly increasing or decreasing an aircraft’s inertial speed too quickly for the “fasten seat belts” sign to provide any warning (not, as noted above, that fastening their seatbelts would actually provide any significant degree of protection to the occupants in question, but it could conceivably induce them to derecline their seats in preparation), such as a flight-control malfunction or evasive action to avoid a MAC (both of which produce large speed excursions secondary to rapid changes in attitude and altitude).



For that matter, even vertical accelerations with no longitudinal component would still be expected to injure flat-lying passengers more severely than those in an ordinary sitting position, for reasons illustrated below:



OUCH



Am I missing something?




1: This is known as submarining, and is a major problem with car seatbelts (even with seats that don’t recline at all), which are much harder to fasten tightly around the pelvis than aircraft seatbelts.



2: If the belt were fastened tightly enough to pin the occupant to the seat even under considerable longitudinal force, this would



  • be highly uncomfortable for the occupant, and

  • upon the application of significant longitudinal forces, drag across the occupant’s abdomen until catching on their ribcage, causing severe internal abdominal injuries plus likely breaking the bottom few ribs.









share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
    $endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I like your drawing.
    $endgroup$
    – vasin1987
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
    $endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    2 hours ago















1












$begingroup$


Virtually all first-class airline seats, and many to most business-class seats, recline all the way down, either as lie-flat seats (where the seat reclines to a 180º seatback-seatpan angle, but the fully-reclined seat is still tilted somewhat forwards relative to the cabin floor) or flat-bed seats (where the seat reclines to a truly flat surface that can also, as the name indicates, serve as a bed).



These seats are, of course, equipped with seatbelts, but I’m having great trouble seeing how even a tightly-fastened seatbelt would provide any protection to a flat-lying occupant, as any significant longitudinal force would cause the occupant of the seat to slide under the belt and out of the seat.12



Although these seats, like all airline passenger seats, are required to be locked in the fully-upright position except in cruise flight, this still leaves the occupants (especially those in flat-bed seats) vulnerable during the (sometimes quite long) portion of the flight when they are allowed to recline their seats to flatness; a moderate head-on (or tail-on, for that matter) gust would be enough to separate these occupants from their fully-reclined seats, as would any other event capable of suddenly increasing or decreasing an aircraft’s inertial speed too quickly for the “fasten seat belts” sign to provide any warning (not, as noted above, that fastening their seatbelts would actually provide any significant degree of protection to the occupants in question, but it could conceivably induce them to derecline their seats in preparation), such as a flight-control malfunction or evasive action to avoid a MAC (both of which produce large speed excursions secondary to rapid changes in attitude and altitude).



For that matter, even vertical accelerations with no longitudinal component would still be expected to injure flat-lying passengers more severely than those in an ordinary sitting position, for reasons illustrated below:



OUCH



Am I missing something?




1: This is known as submarining, and is a major problem with car seatbelts (even with seats that don’t recline at all), which are much harder to fasten tightly around the pelvis than aircraft seatbelts.



2: If the belt were fastened tightly enough to pin the occupant to the seat even under considerable longitudinal force, this would



  • be highly uncomfortable for the occupant, and

  • upon the application of significant longitudinal forces, drag across the occupant’s abdomen until catching on their ribcage, causing severe internal abdominal injuries plus likely breaking the bottom few ribs.









share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
    $endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I like your drawing.
    $endgroup$
    – vasin1987
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
    $endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    2 hours ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$


Virtually all first-class airline seats, and many to most business-class seats, recline all the way down, either as lie-flat seats (where the seat reclines to a 180º seatback-seatpan angle, but the fully-reclined seat is still tilted somewhat forwards relative to the cabin floor) or flat-bed seats (where the seat reclines to a truly flat surface that can also, as the name indicates, serve as a bed).



These seats are, of course, equipped with seatbelts, but I’m having great trouble seeing how even a tightly-fastened seatbelt would provide any protection to a flat-lying occupant, as any significant longitudinal force would cause the occupant of the seat to slide under the belt and out of the seat.12



Although these seats, like all airline passenger seats, are required to be locked in the fully-upright position except in cruise flight, this still leaves the occupants (especially those in flat-bed seats) vulnerable during the (sometimes quite long) portion of the flight when they are allowed to recline their seats to flatness; a moderate head-on (or tail-on, for that matter) gust would be enough to separate these occupants from their fully-reclined seats, as would any other event capable of suddenly increasing or decreasing an aircraft’s inertial speed too quickly for the “fasten seat belts” sign to provide any warning (not, as noted above, that fastening their seatbelts would actually provide any significant degree of protection to the occupants in question, but it could conceivably induce them to derecline their seats in preparation), such as a flight-control malfunction or evasive action to avoid a MAC (both of which produce large speed excursions secondary to rapid changes in attitude and altitude).



For that matter, even vertical accelerations with no longitudinal component would still be expected to injure flat-lying passengers more severely than those in an ordinary sitting position, for reasons illustrated below:



OUCH



Am I missing something?




1: This is known as submarining, and is a major problem with car seatbelts (even with seats that don’t recline at all), which are much harder to fasten tightly around the pelvis than aircraft seatbelts.



2: If the belt were fastened tightly enough to pin the occupant to the seat even under considerable longitudinal force, this would



  • be highly uncomfortable for the occupant, and

  • upon the application of significant longitudinal forces, drag across the occupant’s abdomen until catching on their ribcage, causing severe internal abdominal injuries plus likely breaking the bottom few ribs.









share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Virtually all first-class airline seats, and many to most business-class seats, recline all the way down, either as lie-flat seats (where the seat reclines to a 180º seatback-seatpan angle, but the fully-reclined seat is still tilted somewhat forwards relative to the cabin floor) or flat-bed seats (where the seat reclines to a truly flat surface that can also, as the name indicates, serve as a bed).



These seats are, of course, equipped with seatbelts, but I’m having great trouble seeing how even a tightly-fastened seatbelt would provide any protection to a flat-lying occupant, as any significant longitudinal force would cause the occupant of the seat to slide under the belt and out of the seat.12



Although these seats, like all airline passenger seats, are required to be locked in the fully-upright position except in cruise flight, this still leaves the occupants (especially those in flat-bed seats) vulnerable during the (sometimes quite long) portion of the flight when they are allowed to recline their seats to flatness; a moderate head-on (or tail-on, for that matter) gust would be enough to separate these occupants from their fully-reclined seats, as would any other event capable of suddenly increasing or decreasing an aircraft’s inertial speed too quickly for the “fasten seat belts” sign to provide any warning (not, as noted above, that fastening their seatbelts would actually provide any significant degree of protection to the occupants in question, but it could conceivably induce them to derecline their seats in preparation), such as a flight-control malfunction or evasive action to avoid a MAC (both of which produce large speed excursions secondary to rapid changes in attitude and altitude).



For that matter, even vertical accelerations with no longitudinal component would still be expected to injure flat-lying passengers more severely than those in an ordinary sitting position, for reasons illustrated below:



OUCH



Am I missing something?




1: This is known as submarining, and is a major problem with car seatbelts (even with seats that don’t recline at all), which are much harder to fasten tightly around the pelvis than aircraft seatbelts.



2: If the belt were fastened tightly enough to pin the occupant to the seat even under considerable longitudinal force, this would



  • be highly uncomfortable for the occupant, and

  • upon the application of significant longitudinal forces, drag across the occupant’s abdomen until catching on their ribcage, causing severe internal abdominal injuries plus likely breaking the bottom few ribs.






safety seats seatbelts






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago







Sean

















asked 2 hours ago









SeanSean

6,49543082




6,49543082











  • $begingroup$
    Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
    $endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I like your drawing.
    $endgroup$
    – vasin1987
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
    $endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    2 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
    $endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I like your drawing.
    $endgroup$
    – vasin1987
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
    $endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    2 hours ago















$begingroup$
Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Can you format the first part of this so that it isn't a large wall of text?
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
I like your drawing.
$endgroup$
– vasin1987
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
I like your drawing.
$endgroup$
– vasin1987
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Usually when the seatbelt sign goes on, especially if they ask the flight attendants to sit down, they'll ask people to bring the seat backs up. I've never heard of an instance of a "sudden" head wind or tail wind powerful enough to unseat passengers. Turbulence is a bigger issue and they have ways to detect that before I usually gets too bad.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.



For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.



Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.



In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).



Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
    $endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    17 mins ago


















1












$begingroup$

Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.



Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "528"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63717%2fdon-t-seats-that-recline-flat-defeat-the-purpose-of-having-seatbelts%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.



    For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.



    Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.



    In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).



    Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
      $endgroup$
      – Jan Hudec
      17 mins ago















    3












    $begingroup$

    I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.



    For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.



    Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.



    In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).



    Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
      $endgroup$
      – Jan Hudec
      17 mins ago













    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.



    For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.



    Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.



    In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).



    Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    I'm not sure that comparing car seatbelts to airplane seatbelts is that useful here. The acceleration involved in a car crash at highway speeds are much greater than even the acceleration, mostly vertical, involved in even severe turbulence.



    For example, after a 2015 severe turbulence encounter, investigators determined: "In the first event, the peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 1.7 and + 0.14 g. In the second event, peak vertical acceleration forces recorded were + 2.21 g and −1.32 g," not that much greater than the kind of forces you might pull in a car if you drive really aggressively. That's enough to throw unrestrained passengers and objects about (just as if you slam on the brakes in a car), resulting in injury, but it's a much smaller acceleration than what you'd see in a 30mph car crash. Nobody would consider being slammed against their seat belt like that, whether they're seated upright or reclined, to be enjoyable, but it beats slamming your head into the ceiling.



    Forces much larger than that exceed the design load limits required for the aircraft, and once you're beyond that and the required safety factor, your biggest worry is the structural integrity of the aircraft, and you're less concerned about whether people's limbs flailed about.



    In the case of an actual crash (such as the 16g standard new airplane seats are tested to), lying flat could pose a much larger risk of injury, but that's beyond the design specifications of the seat, which are tested with test dummies in a normal upright position. There aren't a lot of survivable accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight (page 22).



    Car seats can also be reclined, and the diagrams the NHSTA produced of the results of crashes in those cases (see, for instance, page 41) are remarkably similar to yours. This is why "bring your seat to the upright position for landing" is a standard requirement.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 1 hour ago

























    answered 1 hour ago









    Zach LiptonZach Lipton

    6,91912943




    6,91912943











    • $begingroup$
      Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
      $endgroup$
      – Jan Hudec
      17 mins ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
      $endgroup$
      – Jan Hudec
      17 mins ago















    $begingroup$
    Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
    $endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    17 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    Actually there are many accidents that occur without warning during the cruise phase of flight, because any occurrence where somebody is injured qualifies as accident and turbulence-related injuries are quite common. But there is not much on the aircraft that the turbulence could grab to shake it in longitudinal direction, so only vertical accelerations are a concern. The linked document only counts hull-losses, which is much smaller category. In cruise a non-fatal hull-loss can only happen as emergency landing and there is obviously lot of time to put the seats upright in such case.
    $endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    17 mins ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.



    Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      1












      $begingroup$

      Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.



      Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.



        Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Yeah, even in the strongest wind gust longitudinal acceleration or deceleration is not a problem; we are talking only fraction of a G. During cruise flight sudden turbulence causes most damage and there the vertical component is critical. Even then the experienced vertical accelerations are negligible when compared to car accidents. They are enough to toss people and equipment around if not properly secured but again, the acceleration is usually less than a G.



        Airframes are certified to -1/+2,5G vertical acceleration with additional margin of 50% so structural failure is likely to occur way before car wrecking forces are encountered.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        busdriverbusdriver

        4936




        4936



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63717%2fdon-t-seats-that-recline-flat-defeat-the-purpose-of-having-seatbelts%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            یوتیوب محتویات پیشینه[ویرایش] فناوری‌های ویدئویی[ویرایش] شوخی‌های آوریل[ویرایش] سانسور و فیلترینگ[ویرایش] آمار و ارقامی از یوتیوب[ویرایش] تأثیر اجتماعی[ویرایش] سیاست اجتماعی[ویرایش] نمودارها[ویرایش] یادداشت‌ها[ویرایش] پانویس[ویرایش] پیوند به بیرون[ویرایش] منوی ناوبریبررسی شده‌استYouTube.com[بروزرسانی]"Youtube.com Site Info""زبان‌های یوتیوب""Surprise! There's a third YouTube co-founder"سایت یوتیوب برای چندمین بار در ایران فیلتر شدنسخهٔ اصلیسالار کمانگر جوان آمریکایی ایرانی الاصل مدیر سایت یوتیوب شدنسخهٔ اصلیVideo websites pop up, invite postingsthe originalthe originalYouTube: Overnight success has sparked a backlashthe original"Me at the zoo"YouTube serves up 100 million videos a day onlinethe originalcomScore Releases May 2010 U.S. Online Video Rankingsthe originalYouTube hits 4 billion daily video viewsthe originalYouTube users uploading two days of video every minutethe originalEric Schmidt, Princeton Colloquium on Public & Int'l Affairsthe original«Streaming Dreams»نسخهٔ اصلیAlexa Traffic Rank for YouTube (three month average)the originalHelp! YouTube is killing my business!the originalUtube sues YouTubethe originalGoogle closes $A2b YouTube dealthe originalFlash moves on to smart phonesthe originalYouTube HTML5 Video Playerنسخهٔ اصلیYouTube HTML5 Video Playerthe originalGoogle tries freeing Web video with WebMthe originalVideo length for uploadingthe originalYouTube caps video lengths to reduce infringementthe originalAccount Types: Longer videosthe originalYouTube bumps video limit to 15 minutesthe originalUploading large files and resumable uploadingthe originalVideo Formats: File formatsthe originalGetting Started: File formatsthe originalThe quest for a new video codec in Flash 8the originalAdobe Flash Video File Format Specification Version 10.1the originalYouTube Mobile goes livethe originalYouTube videos go HD with a simple hackthe originalYouTube now supports 4k-resolution videosthe originalYouTube to get high-def 1080p playerthe original«Approximate YouTube Bitrates»نسخهٔ اصلی«Bigger and Better: Encoding for YouTube 720p HD»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube's 1080p – Failure Depends on How You Look At It»نسخهٔ اصلیYouTube in 3Dthe originalYouTube in 3D?the originalYouTube 3D Videosthe originalYouTube adds a dimension, 3D goggles not includedthe originalYouTube Adds Stereoscopic 3D Video Support (And 3D Vision Support, Too)the original«Sharing YouTube Videos»نسخهٔ اصلی«Downloading videos from YouTube is not supported, except for one instance when it is permitted.»نسخهٔ اصلی«Terms of Use, 5.B»نسخهٔ اصلی«Some YouTube videos get download option»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube looks out for content owners, disables video ripping»«Downloading videos from YouTube is not supported, except for one instance when it is permitted.»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube Hopes To Boost Revenue With Video Downloads»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube Mobile»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube Live on Apple TV Today; Coming to iPhone on June 29»نسخهٔ اصلی«Goodbye Flash: YouTube mobile goes HTML5 on iPhone and Android»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube Mobile Goes HTML5, Video Quality Beats Native Apps Hands Down»نسخهٔ اصلی«TiVo Getting YouTube Streaming Today»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube video comes to Wii and PlayStation 3 game consoles»نسخهٔ اصلی«Coming Up Next... YouTube on Your TV»نسخهٔ اصلی«Experience YouTube XL on the Big Screen»نسخهٔ اصلی«Xbox Live Getting Live TV, YouTube & Bing Voice Search»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube content locations»نسخهٔ اصلی«April fools: YouTube turns the world up-side-down»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube goes back to 1911 for April Fools' Day»نسخهٔ اصلی«Simon Cowell's bromance, the self-driving Nascar and Hungry Hippos for iPad... the best April Fools' gags»نسخهٔ اصلی"YouTube Announces It Will Shut Down""YouTube Adds Darude 'Sandstorm' Button To Its Videos For April Fools' Day"«Censorship fears rise as Iran blocks access to top websites»نسخهٔ اصلی«China 'blocks YouTube video site'»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube shut down in Morocco»نسخهٔ اصلی«Thailand blocks access to YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلی«Ban on YouTube lifted after deal»نسخهٔ اصلی«Google's Gatekeepers»نسخهٔ اصلی«Turkey goes into battle with Google»نسخهٔ اصلی«Turkey lifts two-year ban on YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلیسانسور در ترکیه به یوتیوب رسیدلغو فیلترینگ یوتیوب در ترکیه«Pakistan blocks YouTube website»نسخهٔ اصلی«Pakistan lifts the ban on YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلی«Pakistan blocks access to YouTube in internet crackdown»نسخهٔ اصلی«Watchdog urges Libya to stop blocking websites»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلی«Due to abuses of religion, customs Emirates, YouTube is blocked in the UAE»نسخهٔ اصلی«Google Conquered The Web - An Ultimate Winner»نسخهٔ اصلی«100 million videos are viewed daily on YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلی«Harry and Charlie Davies-Carr: Web gets taste for biting baby»نسخهٔ اصلی«Meet YouTube's 224 million girl, Natalie Tran»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube to Double Down on Its 'Channel' Experiment»نسخهٔ اصلی«13 Some Media Companies Choose to Profit From Pirated YouTube Clips»نسخهٔ اصلی«Irate HK man unlikely Web hero»نسخهٔ اصلی«Web Guitar Wizard Revealed at Last»نسخهٔ اصلی«Charlie bit my finger – again!»نسخهٔ اصلی«Lowered Expectations: Web Redefines 'Quality'»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube's 50 Greatest Viral Videos»نسخهٔ اصلیYouTube Community Guidelinesthe original«Why did my YouTube account get closed down?»نسخهٔ اصلی«Why do I have a sanction on my account?»نسخهٔ اصلی«Is YouTube's three-strike rule fair to users?»نسخهٔ اصلی«Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn»نسخهٔ اصلی«Mediaset Files EUR500 Million Suit Vs Google's YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلی«Premier League to take action against YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube law fight 'threatens net'»نسخهٔ اصلی«Google must divulge YouTube log»نسخهٔ اصلی«Google Told to Turn Over User Data of YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلی«US judge tosses out Viacom copyright suit against YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلی«Google and Viacom: YouTube copyright lawsuit back on»نسخهٔ اصلی«Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube loses court battle over music clips»نسخهٔ اصلیYouTube to Test Software To Ease Licensing Fightsthe original«Press Statistics»نسخهٔ اصلی«Testing YouTube's Audio Content ID System»نسخهٔ اصلی«Content ID disputes»نسخهٔ اصلیYouTube Community Guidelinesthe originalYouTube criticized in Germany over anti-Semitic Nazi videosthe originalFury as YouTube carries sick Hillsboro video insultthe originalYouTube attacked by MPs over sex and violence footagethe originalAl-Awlaki's YouTube Videos Targeted by Rep. Weinerthe originalYouTube Withdraws Cleric's Videosthe originalYouTube is letting users decide on terrorism-related videosthe original«Time's Person of the Year: You»نسخهٔ اصلی«Our top 10 funniest YouTube comments – what are yours?»نسخهٔ اصلی«YouTube's worst comments blocked by filter»نسخهٔ اصلی«Site Info YouTube»نسخهٔ اصلیوبگاه YouTubeوبگاه موبایل YouTubeوووووو

            Magento 2 - Auto login with specific URL Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Customer can't login - Page refreshes but nothing happensCustom Login page redirectURL to login with redirect URL after completionCustomer login is case sensitiveLogin with phone number or email address - Magento 1.9Magento 2: Set Customer Account Confirmation StatusCustomer auto connect from URLHow to call customer login form in the custom module action magento 2?Change of customer login error message magento2Referrer URL in modal login form

            Rest API with Magento using PHP with example. Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How to update product using magento client library for PHP?Oauth Error while extending Magento Rest APINot showing my custom api in wsdl(url) and web service list?Using Magento API(REST) via IXMLHTTPRequest COM ObjectHow to login in Magento website using REST APIREST api call for Guest userMagento API calling using HTML and javascriptUse API rest media management by storeView code (admin)Magento REST API Example ErrorsHow to log all rest api calls in magento2?How to update product using magento client library for PHP?