[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c15 = "" innerhtml = "
As the FAA Reauthorization Act draws closer to the conclusion, there is good news that the airlines are hoping the FAA will require airlines to set minimum seating standards.
Economy air seatsMarisa Garcia
Unfortunately, as before, these stories of well-being become unpleasant as you take a closer look at the text. The FAA's New Authorization Project and the Senate Report only require that the FAA study any correlation between seat dimensions and safety.
EC. 3121. DIMENSIONS OF PASSENGER SEATS.
a) In general. – No later than 18 months after the date of promulgation of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall initiate a procedure to study the minimum pitch of passenger seats of aircraft operated by air carriers (as defined in section 40102 of Title 49, United States Code).
(b) Considerations. – In reviewing a minimum seat location under paragraph a), the Administrator must consider the safety of passengers, including passengers with disabilities. "
The FAA will undoubtedly do what the Congress asks and will study the issue, but that does not guarantee minimum dimensions, for several reasons.
Incorrect size tests
First, the tests required by the FAA and submitted by OEMs to prove seat safety remain unchanged. None of the crash dynamics standards have been questioned, although they probably should at this stage. The average size of a human today is far from the average size of a human being when these test specifications were originally written. One could argue that the use of test dummies that do not represent real humans is an inaccurate test. Maybe the crash dynamics would change significantly with a bigger and heavier subject. This can be the ideal way to prove whether current seating models are safe or not. Negative collision dynamics may cause airlines to add space to avoid head injuries or to increase the width to avoid other neck, back or body injuries.
But this is unlikely to happen.
The problem is that these models do not fall under the FAA. These are standards set by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which includes active working groups of aeronautical engineers who consult with the FAA. During the last audit, the CAS did not intend to change the collision test dummy standard, nor did the aviation working groups.
Despite the availability of updated dummies by size and the opinion of qualified transportation engineers, it is necessary to update the existing dummies.
It becomes a delicate situation. The aviation part of the SAE will say that the automotive side has not changed the dynamics of the mannequins. They could argue that there are many more accidents in cars than in aircraft, so there is really no reason to rephrase what already constitutes dynamic crash tests on aircraft seats. These require, among other things, an impact force of 16G – a force considerably higher than that which can be expected from the human body.
Of course, the crash dynamics argument is not the one used. This is unfortunate, as these new standards could be prescribed and new tests should be done fairly quickly.
Instead, the call involves studying something more difficult to prove: that there is a correlation between the seat pitch (the distance between the front and rear seats) and the safety of the passengers.
Secure evacuation
Evacuation tests also have standards. New aircraft must comply with the 90-second evacuation rule. There is a little room for maneuver when this applies, since an already approved aircraft can go through similarity if it adds only a few seats and that access to exits is still sufficient. But even when manufacturers perform 90-second tests, the question arises as to whether the test subjects equitably represent the traveling public.
The problem is that these tests are dangerous to perform. Real people evacuating a plane, even when they know there is no emergency, have injured each other.
Manufacturers will limit their potential liabilities by excluding participants who may be injured when a crowd rushes off the plane. They recruit a range of sizes and weights for participants that fit the rule, and nothing more.
Those who have dedicated themselves to carrying out these tests over the years have disagreed over the correlation between seat width and pitch and evacuation safety. In fact, a study conducted on this in the late 1990s suggested that wider, more distant seats are safer, but the people who conducted the study then changed their minds. Some have even suggested that overcrowded seats are better because passengers jump over the seats to get to the front of the plane faster than waiting for the driveway to go up. emerges. Therefore, they say, a tighter seat is actually a safety measure.
Flying is safe
Aircraft accidents are extremely rare. This shows that the entire aviation community, including the FAA, has done its job. NTSB investigators who meticulously study accidents and publish reports and recommendations to the FAA help prevent the recurrence of accidents and injuries.
A large number of modifications have been made to each cabin element to ensure passenger safety and to prevent injuries and fatalities in accidents and evacuations. FAA, NTSB and CAMI (Aerospace Medical Institute)As well as international regulators have been actively studying this issue since the beginning. This does not mean that they should not study it again, but that does not mean that they will find anything different if they use the same standards for testing.
The main thing that would motivate change would be concrete data on injuries. Unfortunately, it is the most reliable of an accident investigation.
The passengers do not seem to care enough about it
We did not see many cases of injuries during the exit correlated with the seats, but we found evacuation problems. The unpredictability of passenger behavior is one of the dangers of real life. Passengers delayed evacuation as they ignore clear instructions from cabin crew; for example, stopping to get their bags. We need to take a closer look at human factors in an emergency. Airlines and regulators will need to find a way to ensure that passengers follow basic instructions for the sake of survival.
But think about why most people book exit seats. Is it because they are concerned about their own safety and want to be sure to go out? Is it because they are altruistic and want to be the ones who help people get out of the plane safely? Or is it because they want more legroom and are willing to pay for it?
Airline standards are the problem
The argument that airline seats are getting narrower and the problem is becoming more serious is perhaps correct, but for the reasons listed above, it's hard to prove it. There are simply not enough plane crashes to collect real data, which is a good thing. Again, focusing on collision dynamics tests – which do not require human beings – by emphasizing representative collision test dummies, might be the best way to find out what which must be corrected.
But the real problem is that cabin space becomes inhospitable for humans and dysfunctional.
Much of it is just common sense: the seats are narrower and the people are wider. The seats are tighter and the people are bigger. The seats are difficult to access and people have mobility problems. Some toilets are so tiny that they are laughable. The only features that are gaining momentum are the in-flight entertainment seat screens and some airlines are also eliminating them. The cabin is often uncomfortable and unattractive. These problems will become worse as the number of flyers increases and the traveling public ages.
Airlines will argue the economy – people want to pay less for flying – but this is not a clear argument. When airlines were regulated, cabin standards were different, but fares were also higher. There were also fewer passengers in flight and more aircraft accidents resulting in injuries and death.
But some airlines manage to offer better conditions. Japan Airlines has long been committed to making its fleet accessible and user-friendly by imposing universal design standards. It's a business policy that reflects an understanding and appreciation of the needs of an aging population and respects all of the airline's customers.
This can be done because it is the right thing to do, but the bosses of the airlines must decide to do the right thing.
At the IATA annual general meeting in Sydney, the airlines answered questions about it and showed their unwillingness to change by themselves. New laws may be needed to spur change, but lawmakers will need to find a better way to put these laws into practice.
Regulating airlines again, commercially, to ensure higher service standards is an option, but it's something that is beyond the control of the FAA.
In fact, the message that the FAA receives from the government is very different. One of the first decrees of President Donald Trump required a reduction in regulation, including at the USDOT. In compliance, the USDOT has mandated a review of the FAA regulations with manufacturers and industry experts seeking regulations that they deem ineffective or entailing an excessive financial burden. They have actively proposed reductions in the largest number of uncompetitive regulations possible. Even if Congress imposed minimum seating standards, the decree could cancel them immediately.
">
As the FAA Reauthorization Act draws closer to the conclusion, there is good news that the airlines are hoping the FAA will require airlines to set minimum seating standards.
Economy air seatsMarisa Garcia
Unfortunately, as before, these stories of well-being become unpleasant as you take a closer look at the text. The FAA's New Authorization Project and the Senate Report only require that the FAA study any correlation between seat dimensions and safety.
EC. 3121. DIMENSIONS OF PASSENGER SEATS.
a) In general. – No later than 18 months after the date of promulgation of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall initiate a procedure to study the minimum pitch of passenger seats of aircraft operated by air carriers (as defined in section 40102 of Title 49, United States Code).
(b) Considerations. – In reviewing a minimum seat location under paragraph a), the Administrator must consider the safety of passengers, including passengers with disabilities. "
The FAA will undoubtedly do what the Congress asks and will study the issue, but that does not guarantee minimum dimensions, for several reasons.
Incorrect size tests
First, the tests required by the FAA and submitted by OEMs to prove seat safety remain unchanged. None of the crash dynamics standards have been questioned, although they probably should at this stage. The average size of a human today is far from the average size of a human being when these test specifications were originally written. One could argue that the use of test dummies that do not represent real humans is an inaccurate test. Maybe the crash dynamics would change significantly with a bigger and heavier subject. This can be the ideal way to prove whether current seating models are safe or not. Negative collision dynamics may cause airlines to add space to avoid head injuries or to increase the width to avoid other neck, back or body injuries.
But this is unlikely to happen.
The problem is that these models do not fall under the FAA. These are standards set by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which includes active working groups of aeronautical engineers who consult with the FAA. During the last audit, the CAS did not intend to change the collision test dummy standard, nor did the aviation working groups.
Despite the availability of updated dummies by size and the opinion of qualified transportation engineers, it is necessary to update the existing dummies.
It becomes a delicate situation. The aviation part of the SAE will say that the automotive side has not changed the dynamics of the mannequins. They could argue that there are many more accidents in cars than in aircraft, so there is really no reason to rephrase what already constitutes dynamic crash tests on aircraft seats. These require, among other things, an impact force of 16G – a force considerably higher than that which can be expected from the human body.
Of course, the crash dynamics argument is not the one used. This is unfortunate, as these new standards could be prescribed and new tests should be done fairly quickly.
Instead, the call involves studying something more difficult to prove: that there is a correlation between the seat pitch (the distance between the front and rear seats) and the safety of the passengers.
Secure evacuation
Evacuation tests also have standards. New aircraft must comply with the 90-second evacuation rule. There is a little room for maneuver when this applies, since an already approved aircraft can go through similarity if it adds only a few seats and that access to exits is always sufficient. But even when manufacturers perform 90-second tests, the question arises as to whether the test subjects equitably represent the traveling public.
The problem is that these tests are dangerous to perform. Real people evacuating a plane, even when they know there is no emergency, have injured each other.
Manufacturers will limit their potential liabilities by excluding participants who may be injured when a crowd rushes off the plane. They recruit a range of sizes and weights for participants that fit the rule, and nothing more.
Those who have dedicated themselves to carrying out these tests over the years have disagreed over the correlation between seat width and pitch and evacuation safety. In fact, a study conducted on this in the late 1990s suggested that wider, more distant seats are safer, but the people who conducted the study then changed their minds. Some have even suggested that overcrowded seats are better because passengers jump over the seats to get to the front of the plane faster than waiting for the driveway to go up. emerges. Therefore, they say, a tighter seat is actually a safety measure.
Flying is safe
Aircraft accidents are extremely rare. This shows that the entire aviation community, including the FAA, has done its job. NTSB investigators who meticulously study accidents and publish reports and recommendations to the FAA help prevent the recurrence of accidents and injuries.
A large number of modifications have been made to each cabin element to ensure passenger safety and to prevent injuries and fatalities in accidents and evacuations. FAA, NTSB and CAMI (Aerospace Medical Institute)As well as international regulators have been actively studying this issue since the beginning. This does not mean that they should not study it again, but that does not mean that they will find anything different if they use the same standards for testing.
The main thing that would motivate change would be concrete data on injuries. Unfortunately, it is the most reliable of an accident investigation.
The passengers do not seem to care enough about it
We did not see many cases of injuries during the exit correlated with the seats, but we found evacuation problems. The unpredictability of passenger behavior is one of the dangers of real life. Passengers delayed evacuation as they ignore clear instructions from cabin crew; for example by stopping to collect their bags. We need to take a closer look at human factors in an emergency. Airlines and regulators will need to find a way to ensure that passengers follow basic instructions for the sake of survival.
But think about why most people book exit seats. Is it because they are concerned about their own safety and want to be sure to go out? Is it because they are altruistic and want to be the ones who help people get out of the plane safely? Or is it because they want more legroom and are willing to pay for it?
Airline standards are the problem
The argument that airline seats are getting narrower and the problem is becoming more serious is perhaps correct, but for the reasons listed above, it's hard to prove it. There are simply not enough plane crashes to collect real data, which is a good thing. Again, focusing on collision dynamics tests – which do not require human beings – by emphasizing representative collision test dummies, might be the best way to find out what which must be corrected.
But the real problem is that cabin space becomes inhospitable for humans and dysfunctional.
Much of it is just common sense: the seats are narrower and the people are wider. The seats are tighter and the people are bigger. The seats are difficult to access and people have mobility problems. Some toilets are so tiny that they are laughable. The only features that are gaining momentum are the in-flight entertainment seat screens and some airlines are also eliminating them. The cabin is often uncomfortable and unattractive. These problems will become worse as the number of flyers increases and the traveling public ages.
Airlines will argue the economy – people want to pay less for flying – but this is not a clear argument. When airlines were regulated, cabin standards were different, but fares were also higher. There were also fewer passengers in flight and more aircraft accidents resulting in injuries and death.
But some airlines manage to offer better conditions. Japan Airlines has long been committed to making its fleet accessible and user-friendly by imposing universal design standards. It's a business policy that reflects an understanding and appreciation of the needs of an aging population and respects all of the airline's customers.
This can be done because it is the right thing to do, but the bosses of the airlines must decide to do the right thing.
At the IATA annual general meeting in Sydney, the airlines answered questions about it and showed their unwillingness to change by themselves. New laws may be needed to spur change, but lawmakers will need to find a better way to put these laws into practice.
Regulating airlines again, commercially, to ensure higher service standards is an option, but it's something that is beyond the control of the FAA.
In fact, the message that the FAA receives from the government is very different. One of the first decrees of President Donald Trump required a reduction in regulation, including at the USDOT. In compliance, the USDOT has mandated a review of the FAA regulations with manufacturers and industry experts seeking regulations that they deem ineffective or entailing an excessive financial burden. They have actively proposed reductions in the largest number of uncompetitive regulations possible. Even if Congress imposed minimum seating standards, the decree could cancel them immediately.
