OK, this is batshiat insane.

Can someone in the industry tell me exactly how many lives would have been saved in the past, say, five years, by including airbags on passenger planes?

If the answer is more than "zero" I'll be surprised. If it's more than "ten" I'll say "Bullshiat."

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to force already-struggling airlines to spend $1250 per passenger seat must be, well, in the airbag business.

Will they have emergency inflation valves?

I meant "manual inflation nozzle"

See? The next time a jet crashes at 40-50mph, you'll be just fine.

Why not just wrap the planes in bubble wrap?

What a horrible decision! Where is there an instance where an airbag would have saved a life on an airplane? - and how many millions are they spending to do this when the airline industry is in trouble financially...

Silly humans. Clearly, the most logical course of action would be to install these airbags OUTSIDE of the aircraft, inflating prior to any collision, and thereby reducing the likelihood of any damage upon impact.

Where's my Nobel prize?

Stand by for future Fark headline, something on the order of... Remember those ridiculous air bags that were installed for millions of dollars for "safety"? Well they safely deployed during turbulence and injured a woman and her child who are now suing the airlines for 40 million."
Total cost of installation - 50 million
Total cost of lawsuit - 40 million
Total 90 million
Number of lives saved - 0
Number of people injured because of device - 2

FoxEnigma: Silly humans. Clearly, the most logical course of action would be to install these airbags OUTSIDE of AIRBUS aircraft, inflating prior to any collision, and thereby reducing the likelihood of any damage upon impact.

Where's my Nobel prize?

ftfy

Pay the Man: FoxEnigma: Silly humans. Clearly, the most logical course of action would be to install these airbags OUTSIDE of AIRBUS/SCAREBUS aircraft, inflating prior to any collision, and thereby reducing the likelihood of any damage upon impact.

Where's my Nobel prize?

ftfy

Zeio, is that you?

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one

The Mythbusters testing suggested that a major cause of deaths was seat mount failure, causing the seats to buckle forward into the next seat, breaking legs. Escaping the inevitable fire is much harder with one or two broken legs.

MooseUpNorth: The Mythbusters testing suggested that a major cause of deaths was seat mount failure, causing the seats to buckle forward into the next seat, breaking legs. Escaping the inevitable fire is much harder with one or two broken legs.

This must have been what killed all those air passengers on 9/11, not the actual disintegration of the aircraft due to high-speed impact.

bowling ball: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one

Uh, no. If you do work for a company that does this, they are the most retarded pieces of shiat on earth because there is precedent that such decision making leads to major punitive damages. In other words, you're a liar.

tonesskin: bowling ball: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one

Uh, no. If you do work for a company that does this, they are the most retarded pieces of shiat on earth because there is precedent that such decision making leads to major punitive damages. In other words, you're a liar.

Calm down. It's a quote from Fight Club.

Reference

PEBKAC: tonesskin: bowling ball: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one

Uh, no. If you do work for a company that does this, they are the most retarded pieces of shiat on earth because there is precedent that such decision making leads to major punitive damages. In other words, you're a liar.

Calm down. It's a quote from Fight Club.

Reference

Oh, damn, I hate that stupid ass movie. Oh well, I suck at life.

Pay the Man: MooseUpNorth: The Mythbusters testing suggested that a major cause of deaths was seat mount failure, causing the seats to buckle forward into the next seat, breaking legs. Escaping the inevitable fire is much harder with one or two broken legs.

This must have been what killed all those air passengers on 9/11, not the actual disintegration of the aircraft due to high-speed impact.

Since when does "a major cause" translate to "the only cause"? If a plane performs a crash landing in water and the seats buckle, it'll be pretty hard to swim with broken legs.

freakdiablo: Pay the Man: MooseUpNorth: The Mythbusters testing suggested that a major cause of deaths was seat mount failure, causing the seats to buckle forward into the next seat, breaking legs. Escaping the inevitable fire is much harder with one or two broken legs.

This must have been what killed all those air passengers on 9/11, not the actual disintegration of the aircraft due to high-speed impact.

Since when does "a major cause" translate to "the only cause"? If a plane performs a crash landing in water and the seats buckle, it'll be pretty hard to swim with broken legs.

That's why they include personal flotation devices, junior.

Pay the Man: MooseUpNorth: The Mythbusters testing suggested that a major cause of deaths was seat mount failure, causing the seats to buckle forward into the next seat, breaking legs. Escaping the inevitable fire is much harder with one or two broken legs.

This must have been what killed all those air passengers on 9/11, not the actual disintegration of the aircraft due to high-speed impact.


Yes, but the jets from 9/11 also hit a stationary object while at high-altitude speed, at a fairly perpendicular angle. Most survivable accidents like this occur at a fairly low angle to the ground (which you'd be hitting).

Sadly, the type of impact event that would result in deceleration necessary for an airbag type safety system would usually mean a nosedive into the ground. I don't know about seats tearing free and all that, but I'd wager the biggest safety improvement you could do for specific seats would be 5 point harnesses.

Pay the Man: freakdiablo: Pay the Man: MooseUpNorth: The Mythbusters testing suggested that a major cause of deaths was seat mount failure, causing the seats to buckle forward into the next seat, breaking legs. Escaping the inevitable fire is much harder with one or two broken legs.

This must have been what killed all those air passengers on 9/11, not the actual disintegration of the aircraft due to high-speed impact.

Since when does "a major cause" translate to "the only cause"? If a plane performs a crash landing in water and the seats buckle, it'll be pretty hard to swim with broken legs.

That's why they include personal flotation devices, junior.

That's just an example, there are many situations that would cause large g-forces and not cause the entire plane to disintegrate. I'm starting to doubt your ability to come up with situations yourself.

freakdiablo: Pay the Man: freakdiablo: Pay the Man: MooseUpNorth: The Mythbusters testing suggested that a major cause of deaths was seat mount failure, causing the seats to buckle forward into the next seat, breaking legs. Escaping the inevitable fire is much harder with one or two broken legs.

This must have been what killed all those air passengers on 9/11, not the actual disintegration of the aircraft due to high-speed impact.

Since when does "a major cause" translate to "the only cause"? If a plane performs a crash landing in water and the seats buckle, it'll be pretty hard to swim with broken legs.

That's why they include personal flotation devices, junior.

That's just an example, there are many situations that would cause large g-forces and not cause the entire plane to disintegrate. I'm starting to doubt your ability to come up with situations yourself.

Is it me, or are you ignoring the reality of all the recent air crashes in which each plane has broken up into bits?

The only crashes that airbags would make any sense for are collisions on the taxiway, or when landing gear collapses.

However, the cost of the airbags, and the weight factor would make them an inefficient band aid.

Seems like someone at the DOT is airbag happy, and now working at the FAA...

The entire article is nothing but a series of exercises in doublethink.

"The equipment alone doesn't mean higher ticket prices, though some airlines say the cost of such equipment is factored into their total operating expenses and would be a factor in overall pricing strategy."

It won't cost you more, until it costs you more, and then it's not the cost of the useless security trinkets, it's that they have to adjust to cover the costs of their operating expenses.

Make sure and support the war in EastAsia, and rejoice because I hear the chocolate ration has been increased.

Pay the Man: freakdiablo: Pay the Man: freakdiablo: Pay the Man: MooseUpNorth: The Mythbusters testing suggested that a major cause of deaths was seat mount failure, causing the seats to buckle forward into the next seat, breaking legs. Escaping the inevitable fire is much harder with one or two broken legs.

This must have been what killed all those air passengers on 9/11, not the actual disintegration of the aircraft due to high-speed impact.

Since when does "a major cause" translate to "the only cause"? If a plane performs a crash landing in water and the seats buckle, it'll be pretty hard to swim with broken legs.

That's why they include personal flotation devices, junior.

That's just an example, there are many situations that would cause large g-forces and not cause the entire plane to disintegrate. I'm starting to doubt your ability to come up with situations yourself.

Is it me, or are you ignoring the reality of all the recent air crashes in which each plane has broken up into bits?

The only crashes that airbags would make any sense for are collisions on the taxiway, or when landing gear collapses.

However, the cost of the airbags, and the weight factor would make them an inefficient band aid.

Oh, good, so you do know the benefits of having airbags. I don't know about you, but I think the $1200 to $3000 a piece plus the maintenance for the airbags the article says is worth it in the chance that might happen.

Cruise ships have life jackets. Why don't airplanes have a parachute for everyone on the flight? Special harnesses for adults to tandem children and infants.
One of those Canary Island situations - both engines are gone and the plane simply won't glide that far. In 48 minutes the plane goes into the ocean. Why doesn't every sane person on that plane have the right to choose that moment to find out what it's like to be Vin Deisel's stuntman?

Christ, you'd think the airlines would be offering people that at the ticket counter for the money.
"And would you like the OMGWTF option on your fare?"
What's that?
"For an extra $287 plus applicable fees and waivers, we provide a parachute which will be available to you should the Captain declare an emergency and you wish to exit the aircraft."
WTF? OMG!
"No, Sir. It's OMGWTF. We make no guarantees that you'll have time to use it, or that doing so will in any way improve your chances of being alive 24 hours from now. It's just an option. If it's needed, you can have one at hand with your name on it. Like the saying goes, eh? 'It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.'"
Hah. Imagine the looks on the faces of the people who told you that flying is "Safe". The ones who figured they'd save a coupla hundred bucks because 'flying is safer than driving.' The captain announces that he's going to have to ditch the plane...everyone should take their seats...but YOU have a parachute. NOW who's gloating?

Every chute has a homing beacon attached and the harness includes the inflatable life vest. Jam some power bars and a bottle of Evian in the lining and you create an industry. Chute manufacturing and packing, survival suits, homing beacons, standards and testing programs to ensure minimal failure rates...and compared to stupid farkwitted airbags, there might just come a time when they save a shiatload of people.

Bin_jammin: but I'd wager the biggest safety improvement you could do for specific seats would be 5 point harnesses.

You would probably be correct. That, and seats that were properly fastened to the floor. (and a floor that is designed with that in mind)

I may end up working a few years in an aircrew personal safety position, so if this link gets repeated down the line, I'll give a real answer.

The equipment alone doesn't mean higher ticket prices, though some airlines say the cost of such equipment is factored into their total operating expenses and would be a factor in overall pricing strategy.

The second half of that sentence does not agree with the first.

Also, if you have the belt backwards or twisted... this device will blow your kidneys out your asshole.

With a Airbag you can live long enough to burn in the wreckage. Win for your family, The more you suffer in the crash before you die the larger the payout.

O RLY? At 600 MPH, is it gonna even matter if an airbag deploys? What's it gonna be used for, collecting the pieces of you in a nice Hefty bag so that your family can bury your entire body in a casket, not just a finger?

A four point harness is superior to an airbag when properly worn.

walnuts55: With a Airbag you can live long enough to burn in the wreckage.


Found out the hard way.

I was hoping for another Airbus/Scarebus thread, but I have been sorely disappointed.

Y'all are missing the thing here... When an aircraft hits unexpected turbulence and forty passengers who should have been wearing their seat belts and would have wound up with bloody noses and broken glasses, this will keep the airline from having to pay ... um ... licks pencil .. $34,917,943 in lawsuits.

If only there was a solution that was both cheaper, and more effective.

5-point seat belts and full face racing helmets.

But, of course, that would upset the passengers to wear something so goofy.

question:

can we deploy them prematurly to suffocate a child whose parent isnt attempting to keep them under control?

sincerely,
the stifler

What I learned in this thread:

Nobody's ever been killed in a plane that has mushed in from a relatively low altitude short of a runway.
Nobody's ever been killed in a plane that has run off the end of a runway.
Nobody's ever been killed in a plane that has veered off the side of a runway.
Nobody's ever been killed in a plane that has landed without working landing gear.
Everybody who's ever been killed in a plane crash ever has been killed in a high speed impact.

It wouldn't be so bad if the airbags didn't inflate with hydrogen.

costermonger: Everybody who's ever been killed in a plane crash ever has been killed in a high speed impact.

Into a building on 9/11, no less.

Oh great, now instead of just dieing, I'm also going to have a broken nose. And people wonder why I don't fly.

Wouldn't it be safer just to turn passenger seats in reverse?

If filled with helium, the simultaneous release of all the airbags will keep the plain in the air. Duh....

Shyla: Stand by for future Fark headline, something on the order of... Remember those ridiculous air bags that were installed for millions of dollars for "safety"? Well they safely deployed during turbulence and injured a woman and her child who are now suing the airlines for 40 million."
Total cost of installation - 50 million
Total cost of lawsuit - 40 million
Total 90 million
Number of lives saved - 0
Number of people injured because of device - 2

This wouldn't surprise me at all. One of the dirty secrets your politicians don't want you to know, is that since the seatbelt laws have been in place, there have been 2 separate studies that came to the same conclusion. Seatbelts cause more injuries than they prevent.

I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that the safest seats are those that face towards the back of the plane.

As long as the seat-mounts don't break it would make a helluva lot more sense to just turn the seats around.

Am I missing something?

/faces the back of elevators for the exact same reason

Trapper439:

/faces the back of elevators for the exact same reason

Ummm...what? Elevators go up and down, not front to back. If elevators worry you that much, laying spread eagle on the floor would be the equivalent of a backward facing seat in an airplane. You're doing it wrong.

tatum: Cruise ships have life jackets. Why don't airplanes have a parachute for everyone on the flight? Special harnesses for adults to tandem children and infants.

If you're flying to a skydiving event, and try to save money by WEARING your chute onboard instead of checking it as baggage (which is too risky anyways), personnel and passengers get REALLY nervous seeing that. BUT... typically there is no rule against wearing a chute on the plane.

I think Zeio has gotten inside my head. I've been reading everything as "airbag/scarebag" the entire thread.

Calm as hindu cows...

Man On Pink Corner: OK, this is batshiat insane.

Can someone in the industry tell me exactly how many lives would have been saved in the past, say, five years, by including airbags on passenger planes?

If the answer is more than "zero" I'll be surprised. If it's more than "ten" I'll say "Bullshiat."

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to force already-struggling airlines to spend $1250 per passenger seat must be, well, in the airbag business.

Well, I ran through the FAA crash database and found the following:

2/25/2009 Amsterdam, 737 landed short, 9 killed
4/15/2008 Congo, DC9 over ran runway, 40 killed
6/28/2007 Angola, 737 Collapsed Landing gear, 6 killed
3/7/2007 Indonesia, 737 Over ran runway, 21 killed
8/23/2005 Peru, 737 landed short, 45 killed
11/30/2004 Indonesia, 737 over ran runway, 25 killed

By the way, I selected only crashes where Airbags might have made a difference and the majority of the people survived. There were several where everyone, or all but one or two people died. I assumed that airbags would not have help in those cases at all. Would airbags have saved all of the 146 people who died in these 6 crashes, no. Would they have saved some of them, almost definitely. Would they have saved more then 10 out of the 146, I think that is likely.

The average airliner makes 3 or 4 flights a day, If the airline wanted to recoup the cost of the airbags in one year they have to up the price of the seat by one dollar a flight. Permanently raising the price by 10 cents would pay for the airbags, Maintenance, and replacement of the bags at end of life. Are you really gonna biatch about a dime? Really?

Are you really gonna biatch about a dime? Really?

Yes.

1) None of the crashes you mentioned took place under FAA auspices. None of those planes would have had airbags.

2) It's pretty common these days for a year to go by with zero passenger deaths in commercial aircraft, in the US. What problem is being solved here?

3) Actuarial tables value human life at about $2M/head, the last I checked. If there are 10,000 eligible passenger aircraft in opeation in the US, each with an average of 100 seats equipped with $1250 airbags whose service life is amortized over 10 years, you have just spent about $100 million to potentially save a couple of lives at most. That's just stupid.

Any engineer who, if given $100 million and told to use it to save a handful of travellers, uses it to install airbags on passenger planes should sue his/her university for nonperformance, and his/her parents for genetic negligence.

4) Adding more explosives to an airplane sounds like a really dumb idea. In cars, airbags can and often do inflate in situations where they do more harm than good. Why would you expect a lack of unintended consequences if you put them on aircraft?

Seriously, this is the dumbest idea since the 220-volt rubber duck.

(Sorry, quote directed at HK-MP5-SD)

tatum: Cruise ships have life jackets. Why don't airplanes have a parachute for everyone on the flight? Special harnesses for adults to tandem children and infants.


Amazing visual!

'Sorry Timmy, the harness only holds one. Regretting that tantrum in the airport now?'

Why don't we just use the Neck Belt??

Man On Pink Corner: Are you really gonna biatch about a dime? Really?

Yes.

1) None of the crashes you mentioned took place under FAA auspices. None of those planes would have had airbags.

I am relatively sure that any carrier that flies into the united states must follow FAA regs, So at least 3 of those aircraft would have had airbags. Even if they are not these regulatory organization talk frequently, I would be surprised if similar regulations are not under consideration in Japan, and the EU as we speak.

2) It's pretty common these days for a year to go by with zero passenger deaths in commercial aircraft, in the US. What problem is being solved here?

Crowding on airports and runways is bad and getting worse. there are frequent incidents of runway incursions with other aircraft and ground vehicles. This type of incident is Ideally suited for air bags, relatively low speed impacts, because the flight crew has a fair opportunity to reverse thrust before impact.

3) Actuarial tables value human life at about $2M/head, the last I checked. If there are 10,000 eligible passenger aircraft in opeation in the US, each with an average of 100 seats equipped with $1250 airbags whose service life is amortized over 10 years, you have just spent about $100 million to potentially save a couple of lives at most. That's just stupid.

Any engineer who, if given $100 million and told to use it to save a handful of travellers, uses it to install airbags on passenger planes should sue his/her university for nonperformance, and his/her parents for genetic negligence.

I don't know if you actually read the article, but they don't need to put them on all seats, just seats with a bulkhead immediately in front of them, and the ones that convert to beds. Hell, they don't even have to install airbags at all, they can remove a few seats, airbags are just the option that several of the airlines prefer... The airlines prefer.

So, they need to put the airbags on between 3 and 20 seats on the aircraft, lets call it an average of 10 seats, and they are amortized over 14 years, not 10. That makes the cost 9 million, not 100 million.

4) Adding more explosives to an airplane sounds like a really dumb idea. In cars, airbags can and often do inflate in situations where they do more harm than good. Why would you expect a lack of unintended consequences if you put them on aircraft?

I would expect them to operate as well in aircraft as they do in cars, reducing injury substantially 95% of the time and injuring people worse 5% of the time.

Seriously, this is the dumbest idea since the 220-volt rubber duck.

The FAA doesn't just make these things up, they act on the recommendations of the NTSB. The NTSB gets their data from investigating crashes. I don't know who, and I don't know when, but someone died because they impacted a bulkhead because their seat failed at somewhere between the current 4g standard and the new 16g standard in an accident that the NTSB investigated. It may have been 10 years ago, the investigations take time, and the regulations take time. The proposed regulations are also reviewed by a committee consisting of Aircraft Manufacturers, Airline representatives, Citizens, Scientists from government agencies and academia, and politicians. By the way, military aircraft have had 16g seats for over 30 years. The canvas jump seats in the back of a C-130 meet this standard, Its not that big of a deal, this airbag is just the cheapest way to do it, much easier then redesigning the interior of the aircraft.

IStateTheObvious: Shyla: Stand by for future Fark headline, something on the order of... Remember those ridiculous air bags that were installed for millions of dollars for "safety"? Well they safely deployed during turbulence and injured a woman and her child who are now suing the airlines for 40 million."
Total cost of installation - 50 million
Total cost of lawsuit - 40 million
Total 90 million
Number of lives saved - 0
Number of people injured because of device - 2

This wouldn't surprise me at all. One of the dirty secrets your politicians don't want you to know, is that since the seatbelt laws have been in place, there have been 2 separate studies that came to the same conclusion. Seatbelts cause more injuries than they prevent.

So where does all that displaced air in the cabin go? I'd hate to implode from all that extra pressure.

Alx_xlA: IStateTheObvious: Shyla: Stand by for future Fark headline, something on the order of... Remember those ridiculous air bags that were installed for millions of dollars for "safety"? Well they safely deployed during turbulence and injured a woman and her child who are now suing the airlines for 40 million."
Total cost of installation - 50 million
Total cost of lawsuit - 40 million
Total 90 million
Number of lives saved - 0
Number of people injured because of device - 2

This wouldn't surprise me at all. One of the dirty secrets your politicians don't want you to know, is that since the seatbelt laws have been in place, there have been 2 separate studies that came to the same conclusion. Seatbelts cause more injuries than they prevent.

Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE) (new window...PDF!)

The Isles Report (new window...PDF!)

Wikipedia (new window)

The Hidden Danger of Seatbelts (Time magazine article) (new window)

IStateTheObvious: Trapper439:

/faces the back of elevators for the exact same reason

Ummm...what? Elevators go up and down, not front to back. If elevators worry you that much, laying spread eagle on the floor would be the equivalent of a backward facing seat in an airplane. You're doing it wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke