The design of seat belts in passenger aircraft seem to be about 20 years behind that of those fitted in passenger cars. Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but:
Why are the belts even in new planes fixed with the old “flap” style buckle, when surely the “push button” type found in cars would be more user friendly?
The belts have to be adjusted manually - and then checked by the steward(esse)s. Why not use self adjusting/inertia reel type belts? There wouldn’t be much R & D to do - they already exist.
What about 3 point belts, which you would expect to be better at restraining against forces in all 3 dimensions - or would this make the seat design too big and heavy?
I know it doesn’t really matter much, but nobody can tell me.
I would WAG that it’s mostly because of the unwashed masses who have to use the dang things.
Kids or people with disabilities have problems getting out of the ones with push-buttons.
If you have to get somebody else out of the belt, grabbing the buckle and pulling is easier.
No automatic-tensioning belts because it means fewer parts, less to service, less to break. Plus, if you’re wearing it during turbulence and the plane hits a “bump” so it rises sharply, you get pushed down into your seat, the belt tightens, then the plane comes back to normal and suddenly you’ve got a whole plane full of people being attacked by boa constrictors. Never a good sight.
They bought 18 million cases of belt buckles back in 1957, and gosh darn it they’re going to get their money’s worth.
Reel type seatbelts with auto-tensioners, besides being more expensive, are much more complicated and have a large number of moving parts that wear out. Just the buckles that have a ‘push button’ instead of the ‘lever’ type are not as durable and/or reliable.
Three point belts would be too confining for airline passengers and would add little in terms of safety. There’s no dashboard or windshield for your head to hit.
Current airline seatbelts are simple to operate (I still laugh when the flight attendants demonstrate how to operate them), extremely strong and durable. I don’t see them being replaced anytime soon, if ever.
Quite frankly, people are the reason. Nobody wnats to sit for any length of time with a real multi-point belt on- let alone for an overnight flight to Frankfurt. Remember the fuss when they brought automotive seatbelts in? Fortunately planes don’t crach as often as cars.
Small aircraft- even from a couple of decades ago- almost always have at least three-point belts. And the planes I fly have four- or five-point harnesses. And you NEVER take them off. Why? Because we’ve had crashes where the craft disintegrated- was smashed to pieces, or twisted to bits, and the pilot was found alive and uninjured, hanging upside down by the straps. Without strong waist straps AND upper body restraint, we would have lost the crew along with the ship.
But airlines don’t put the extra belts in for the same reason they don’t put the seats in backwards (well, there’s a few reasons for that one): People don’t like it. So, they leave the little lap belts, and tell you to sit a certain way if a crash impends.
Oh, plus everything everybody else said; expense, moving parts, complication, etc.
Don’t lose confidence in the airlines for it though. During most of the flight, you really don’t need the belt, anyway.
Sounds like we have a general consensus that airplane-type belts are better in several ways than car-type belts. If that is true, then why don’t the car manufacturers go back to the old style?
Untrue. There have been numerous cases of unbelted passengers being injured and killed by being flung about the cabin when their aircraft encountered unexpected heavy turbulence. You should always wear your seatbelt when seated.
Try http://nasdac.faa.gov/asp/asy_ntsb.asp and type “seat belt and turbulence” in the search box. You’ll get 117 results. The report I quoted is MIA00LA267, the fourth one down.
Of course you’re safer with the belt on than off. What I mean is, the amount of time you spend in turbulence is quite small compared to the overall airtime, generally. Of course you should wear it when the plane is getting tossed about the sky. I never take mine off , save to adjust it or leave my seat. And passengers in craft under my command keep the straps done up, too.
But really, there’s a reason the Commander turns off the seatbelt sign- it’s not really essential that you wear it when you’re sailing in clear air at 10,000 metres, with the jetstream a hundred miles away and no reports of CAT (Clear Air Turbulence). And the general public would rather be slightly more comfortable than somewhat more safe.
Someone in aviation, generally, takes the opposite stance: we’ll go to incredible lengths for just a tiny bit of added safety. But when it’s a business, you concede a bit to people’s desires. (That’s the free market economy for you.) That’s the reason the seats face forward, why bush pilots fly in bad weather with one-too-many moose carcasses strapped between the floats, and why they turn the seatbelt sign off. Fortunately, you don’t lose a whole lot of safety by taking the belts off during certain phases of flight.
I really don’t like being on this side of the argument. And I really don’t want people to start thinking the 'lines are just appeasing their fears with meaningless belts.
But if it makes you feel more secure, keep the straps done up. I do.
First, the typical deceleration from a survivable air crash isn’t going to throw you forward. Most survivable aircraft injuries are compression injuries from hitting ground hard, or injuries from being hit by flying debris and stuff. Most fatalities in otherwise survivable air crashes are from smoke and fire.
The main purpose for seatbelts is to keep YOU from becoming a projectile, both in turbulence and in crashes. For that, a lap belt is probably sufficient.
And incremental improvements in aircraft are much more expensive than in cars, because the government has extremely severe certification requirements. Just to change a clasp design would cost a ton of money. So the design stays simple and effective, and gets left at that.
Then there’s the weight issue. Put in two pounds of inertial reels per passenger, and you’re talking about a couple of hundred pounds in a 737. That’s an extra passenger and luggage on every flight.