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