Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Doctor treating patients in Flight 214 crash apparently thinks "Seat belts save lives" also applies to plane crashes; befuddled at massive amount of spinal injuries   (cbsnews.com) divider line 124
    More: Dumbass, Asiana Airlines, spinal cord injury, San Francisco General Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, aircraft crashed, neurosurgery, seat belts, San Francisco  
•       •       •

13314 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jul 2013 at 8:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-09 02:33:31 PM  
Tag must be for Submittard.
 
2013-07-09 02:42:11 PM  
"Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"
 
2013-07-09 02:44:51 PM  
The way the front end of that plane slammed down, it's no surprise at all

/why do you think "crash position" is bent over?
//besides making it easier to kiss your ass goodbye
 
2013-07-09 02:47:54 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: The way the front end of that plane slammed down, it's no surprise at all

/why do you think "crash position" is bent over?
//besides making it easier to kiss your ass goodbye


Good point. They didn't have much warning, so I bet most people were sitting normally when they smacked into the ground.
 
2013-07-09 02:52:09 PM  
sounds preferable to being smeared all over the roof of the plane or the tarmac.
 
2013-07-09 02:54:53 PM  
Alive with a hurt back is still alive.
 
2013-07-09 03:12:29 PM  
Wake up Sheeple!
 
2013-07-09 03:35:57 PM  
The same reason you're asked to put your seats upright during take off and landing.. For other people. Maybe for you, but especially for other people.
 
2013-07-09 04:08:05 PM  
Manley said even among those who suffered mild spine trauma, he is struck by a pattern that shows how their upper bodies were flung forward and then backward over the lap belts that kept them in their seats and undoubtedly saved their lives.

what are you trying to do here submitter
 
2013-07-09 04:39:55 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Wake up Sheeple!


Study it out.
 
2013-07-09 07:08:11 PM  

kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"


BUT I'D RATHER BE THROWN CLEAR!!!
 
2013-07-09 07:09:14 PM  

Sgt Otter: kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"

BUT I'D RATHER BE THROWN CLEAR!!!


But then the fire trucks will run over you
 
2013-07-09 07:16:12 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Sgt Otter: kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"

BUT I'D RATHER BE THROWN CLEAR!!!

But then the fire trucks will run over you


Too soon, bro, too soon.

/chuckled
 
2013-07-09 07:31:19 PM  
I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-09 08:10:28 PM  
You missed the part about the 1988 regulations that required airplanes seats to withstand 16g acceleration instead of the previous regulation of 8g, as crash data showed passengers who would have otherwise survived were killed from being thrown around a cabin while still belted in their broken-loose seats?
 
2013-07-09 08:10:58 PM  

RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]


In ten years the accepted slang term for passenger airplane would be 'vomit comit'.
 
2013-07-09 08:12:53 PM  
img842.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-09 08:12:58 PM  

RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]


Same as it works on roller coasters that go backwards.
 
2013-07-09 08:14:11 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Alive with a hurt back is still alive.


alive with a crushed spine and never being able to walk again is still alive.

Unlike that poor girl who might have survived the crash but got killed by an emergency vehicle.
 
2013-07-09 08:16:46 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Sgt Otter: kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"

BUT I'D RATHER BE THROWN CLEAR!!!

But then the fire trucks will run over you


I barked out laughter
 
2013-07-09 08:18:21 PM  
But if you jump up in the air right before impact you can cancel your momentum and walk away unscathed!
 
2013-07-09 08:18:41 PM  

namatad: The My Little Pony Killer: Alive with a hurt back is still alive.

alive with a crushed spine and never being able to walk again is still alive.

Unlike that poor girl who might have survived the crash but got killed by an emergency vehicle.


You noticed a fluke!  Good job!
 
2013-07-09 08:21:20 PM  

skinink: [img842.imageshack.us image 850x589]


An friend of mine used to use these horrifying in-flight graphics as covers for the kick-ass mix tapes he used to make. Obviously, none of the tapes contained cheery pop music.
 
2013-07-09 08:23:11 PM  
didja see the way the plane cartwheeled, <b>sub-sh*tter</b>?   do you THINK that maybe had some folks not worn their belts that MAYBE they would have become wall paste as opposed to alive?   I dunno, perhaps you're an expert and wish to enlighten us with your expertise?
 
2013-07-09 08:24:37 PM  

alienated: RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]

Same as it works on roller coasters that go backwards.


By work, I meant more of how passengers would perceive it. Make takeoffs more queasy?

On backwards roller coasters you most likely (these days) have that big over the head bar, and on an airline that of course would never occur, nor would most passengers want a roller coaster like ride.

Facing the seats around is probably a non-starter - I like flying - I think I'd dislike facing backwards.
 
2013-07-09 08:25:32 PM  

meatofmystery: didja see the way the plane cartwheeled, <b>sub-sh*tter</b>?   do you THINK that maybe had some folks not worn their belts that MAYBE they would have become wall paste as opposed to alive?   I dunno, perhaps you're an expert and wish to enlighten us with your expertise?


bold-fail on my part.
 
2013-07-09 08:29:40 PM  
Where were the people sitting that ended up with spinal injuries? Were they sitting in the rear, near where the bottom of the plane slammed into the seawall and broke the tail off?
 
2013-07-09 08:30:34 PM  
CSB:

I was in a violent accident at 17 years old in a '67 Mustang equipped with only lap belts. While being alive was cool, spending the next 6 months learning to walk properly again was not.

//Not an argument for or against, just sharing the pain of lap belts.
///That's gonna leave a mark.
 
2013-07-09 08:30:44 PM  
Pfft.. Seatbelts kill more lives than they save..

deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-09 08:34:31 PM  
Some of the injuries are compression fractures which given the hard landing is no surprise, and not something you can pin on the seat belts. Also the injuries to ligaments aren't surprising given how the plane whipped around on the ground after impact.
 
2013-07-09 08:36:38 PM  
Man this airbag really stung my face. Somebody should do something.
 
2013-07-09 08:37:35 PM  

kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"


Which is why subby is a dumbass.
 
2013-07-09 08:38:07 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Sgt Otter: kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"

BUT I'D RATHER BE THROWN CLEAR!!!

But then the fire trucks will run over you


I'd rather just not crash because of a pilot not knowing how to fly the dang thing.
/scratches another airline off the list.
//likes flying.
 
2013-07-09 08:38:59 PM  

buggychillerpits: Where were the people sitting that ended up with spinal injuries? Were they sitting in the rear, near where the bottom of the plane slammed into the seawall and broke the tail off?


...and then at the end of the ground loop essentially fell 30 feet out of the air?

Yeah, I'm betting that's where most of the spine injuries came from.
 
2013-07-09 08:39:09 PM  

RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]


A long time ago I read an article about aft facing seating on buses and planes. Nice find!
 
2013-07-09 08:40:07 PM  
Subby's a Libertarian right?
 
2013-07-09 08:42:29 PM  

kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"


Or perhaps a third option you may have overlooked where you have a three point seatbelt, like you have in cars,and no one comes out with extensive and severe whiplash?
 
2013-07-09 08:43:55 PM  
Is broken vertebre preferable to getting hit with the fire truck on the tarmac?
 
2013-07-09 08:48:26 PM  

asmodeus224: kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"

Or perhaps a third option you may have overlooked where you have a three point seatbelt, like you have in cars,and no one comes out with extensive and severe whiplash?


If you read the article, I hope you haven't, then you'd know that it would likely have the opposite effect.

Passengers would have to wear neck braces like racecar drivers to avoid whiplash.
 
2013-07-09 08:49:59 PM  

asmodeus224: Or perhaps a third option you may have overlooked where you have a three point seatbelt, like you have in cars,and no one comes out with extensive and severe whiplash?


Or, you end up with much more severe whiplash because you are dealing with much higher speeds and instead of the whole body absorbing the whip, you only have the neck and head because you've immobilized the torso.  This is why they came up with the brace position.
 
2013-07-09 08:52:45 PM  
Plane crashes usually don't end well no matter what you do.
 
2013-07-09 08:54:36 PM  

namatad: The My Little Pony Killer: Alive with a hurt back is still alive.

alive with a crushed spine and never being able to walk again is still alive.



Says you, my living will is going to specify otherwise. Can't run? Don't want to live and be a burden for the rest of my life.
 
2013-07-09 08:55:26 PM  
Come to think of it, Brad Pitts life was saved by a seat belt in a terrible plane crash, so yeah it must be true!

i1.mirror.co.uk
 
2013-07-09 08:56:20 PM  
Would a 5 point harness be better?

There was a family in my old neighbourhood who were in an accident. The kids in the back who were only wearing lapbelts suffered varying degrees of spinal and intestinal damage.
 
2013-07-09 08:57:08 PM  

spawn73: asmodeus224: kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"

Or perhaps a third option you may have overlooked where you have a three point seatbelt, like you have in cars,and no one comes out with extensive and severe whiplash?

If you read the article, I hope you haven't, then you'd know that it would likely have the opposite effect.

Passengers would have to wear neck braces like racecar drivers to avoid whiplash.


It's been a long-time since I've been on a plane, but don't the flight attendants wear four-point seat belts and sit facing the back of the plane?

My own instinct is that a company like Volvo would be good at coming up with ideas for reducing fatalities. They have some sort of whiplash technology for cars. Maybe airbags (I think some airplanes already have them in first-class). I also think that having the trays and TVs where you're supposed to brace your head doesn't make sense.
 
2013-07-09 09:03:51 PM  
By all means submittard, please don't fasten your seat belt the next time your plan is going to crash.  Hell, might as well be consistent and leave it off while driving too.
 
2013-07-09 09:04:40 PM  
I'd like to know how many eye, face and forehead injuries from the farking marketing credit card scam machines they have in the farking head rests right at eye level. basically a ready to go shrapnel kit right in your face, just to get a few more bucks out of you.  fark those are the worst invention ever.   read a paperback fer gods sake
 
2013-07-09 09:09:48 PM  
They just need the insta-foam stuff from the cars in Demolition Man.
 
2013-07-09 09:09:56 PM  

RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]


umm, these seat belts always look like they are recycled out of vintage cars that were forced to upgrade to shoulder strap belts.  just swap these relics out for over the shoulder and lap or, since you are in a farking airplane, install 5 point harnesses like a pilot has.  One more case of cheap farking quality so some corp can save a few bucks while risking lives. shiat !! two hundred billion is not enough this year !! we need to make 20 extra grand, cancel the seat belt upgrade again !
 
2013-07-09 09:11:57 PM  
Doctor: Asiana Flight 214 survivors have unusual pattern of spinal injuries

...unusual, because most people in plane crashes are USUALLY DEAD.
 
2013-07-09 09:15:50 PM  
Came to abuse subby, see its already been taken care of.
/turns off lights
 
2013-07-09 09:19:46 PM  

Click Click D'oh: asmodeus224: Or perhaps a third option you may have overlooked where you have a three point seatbelt, like you have in cars,and no one comes out with extensive and severe whiplash?

Or, you end up with much more severe whiplash because you are dealing with much higher speeds and instead of the whole body absorbing the whip, you only have the neck and head because you've immobilized the torso.  This is why they came up with the brace position.


well, good point there.
 
2013-07-09 09:20:23 PM  
considering the tail of the plane hit first and broke off then the nose and body slammed the ground from like a 30 degree angle, then the plane did a 360, Im not surprised at all the lower spine injuries.  The lap belts kept the lower half of the body pretty stable while the upper part was swinging every which way.  The drop seat on the front bulkhead has shoulder harnesses.  If they have one in the 777 then that persons neck would have been farked.

Im not a chiropractor but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
2013-07-09 09:21:41 PM  

StopLurkListen: You missed the part about the 1988 regulations that required airplanes seats to withstand 16g acceleration instead of the previous regulation of 8g, as crash data showed passengers who would have otherwise survived were killed from being thrown around a cabin while still belted in their broken-loose seats?


I remember that, Boeing swore they'd go out of business if that were enacted.

/They wanted to fill the plane with Legos and lawn darts.
 
2013-07-09 09:22:51 PM  
See, if Ipads and other portable electronics were allowed not stowed and on during landings then there would have been thousands of dollars of shrapnel flying around the cabin.
 
2013-07-09 09:22:54 PM  
I hope this revises the seatbelts on aircraft. 5 point harness anyone?
 
2013-07-09 09:26:34 PM  

RoyBatty: alienated: RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]

Same as it works on roller coasters that go backwards.

By work, I meant more of how passengers would perceive it. Make takeoffs more queasy?

On backwards roller coasters you most likely (these days) have that big over the head bar, and on an airline that of course would never occur, nor would most passengers want a roller coaster like ride.

Facing the seats around is probably a non-starter - I like flying - I think I'd dislike facing backwards.



I've flown military aircraft where you face the tail.  Can't say I liked it very much.  On takeoffs you feel a little like you are going to fall out of your seat and have to brace yourself.  During flight it felt weird to not be facing the direction you were going.  A couple people mentioned it made them more motion sick.  Landing didn't seem to be any real difference for me.
 
TWX
2013-07-09 09:28:18 PM  

bingethinker: MaudlinMutantMollusk: The way the front end of that plane slammed down, it's no surprise at all

/why do you think "crash position" is bent over?
//besides making it easier to kiss your ass goodbye

Good point. They didn't have much warning, so I bet most people were sitting normally when they smacked into the ground.


There's a curious tire skidmark on the runway that looks like it's the front landing gear's wheels' path. It looks to my admittedly untrained eye like the front landed fairly softly compared to the back, which first slammed into the seawall hard enough to break off the rear landing gear, then was thrown into the air to slam back down again on the dirt next to the runway...

I'm betting that the bulk of the injuries were at the back this time, rather than at the front. The pilots were at the very front and were able to assist others in evacuating, and that corporate officer for that Korean company that tweeted about the crash was probably in first-class, and he walked away.
 
2013-07-09 09:32:24 PM  
It still makes me laugh that we've just had a major air accident where virtually everyone walked away and ONLY two dead--and people are already biatching about how the seats should be redesigned and the seatbelts weren't safe enough, like this wasn't some insane miracle where everything pretty much worked like it should have.

We are so coddled as a species.
 
2013-07-09 09:37:40 PM  

RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]


The seats face backwards in the C-5 Galaxy. I rode those in the army after parking my humvee inside it. There's a little staircase up to the seats. The take off is pretty intense because of the power of the engines but nothing too bad.
 
2013-07-09 09:38:38 PM  

Coastalgrl: I hope this revises the seatbelts on aircraft. 5 point harness anyone?


Infinity point harness. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2013-07-09 09:40:54 PM  

FunkOut: Would a 5 point harness be better?

There was a family in my old neighborhood who were in an accident. The kids in the back who were only wearing lapbelts suffered varying degrees of spinal and intestinal damage.


I have to remember back through the booze and sex, the endless hours of work, back to a time when cars often only had lap belts.

Word on the street back then was lap-belts do keep you in your seat during low impact crashes, but cause spinal and internal injuries in bad accidents. Three point safety belts are much better.  A five point harness would be even better.  With those most people would survive the crash, but not the usual fireball as burning jet fuel sprays throughout the cabin.
 
2013-07-09 09:41:17 PM  

RoyBatty: alienated: RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]

Same as it works on roller coasters that go backwards.

By work, I meant more of how passengers would perceive it. Make takeoffs more queasy?

On backwards roller coasters you most likely (these days) have that big over the head bar, and on an airline that of course would never occur, nor would most passengers want a roller coaster like ride.

Facing the seats around is probably a non-starter - I like flying - I think I'd dislike facing backwards.


I agree with your statements about flying, and flying backwards. Then again, it's kind of important for a pilot to see in the direction the plane flies.
 
2013-07-09 09:43:46 PM  

Gyrfalcon: It still makes me laugh that we've just had a major air accident where virtually everyone walked away and ONLY two dead--and people are already biatching about how the seats should be redesigned and the seatbelts weren't safe enough, like this wasn't some insane miracle where everything pretty much worked like it should have.

We are so coddled as a species.


There were only two dead, but perhaps a couple of dozen with severe spinal injuries, and it's not clear what other sort of injuries they will never recover from.

At any point at all in the history of air traffic, someone could say, "we can freakin fly through the air at hundreds of miles an hour and you're complaining about a minuscule number of deaths?" And they would be right to the same extent you are.

It's clear from the video that the outcome could have been much worse if the aircraft was just a foor or so lower on impact, or if the cartwheeling had been at a different angle.

Aircraft are pretty darn safe, but if rare accidents were even more survivable by rotating the seats and there were few other costs or problems associated with that, I think I'd prefer to travel backwards.
 
2013-07-09 09:51:01 PM  

RoyBatty: Aircraft are pretty darn safe, but if rare accidents were even more survivable by rotating the seats and there were few other costs or problems associated with that, I think I'd prefer to travel backwards.


What if airlines had to jack up fees because of all the extra barf bags?

Seriously, for the motion-sick, traveling backwards on an airplane is like rubbing poison ivy on an itchy red patch of skin. I took Dramamine and Xanax before my last flight and was still nauseous the whole 5-hour ride.
 
2013-07-09 09:51:44 PM  

FunkOut: Would a 5 point harness be better?

There was a family in my old neighbourhood who were in an accident. The kids in the back who were only wearing lapbelts suffered varying degrees of spinal and intestinal damage.


Above a certain speed (which IS reached on takeoff and landing), there's Sweet Fark All one can do other than putting people in helmets, 5-point restraints, and HANS devices a la race car drivers--which is about the speed planes DO hit on takeoff and landing (and which the Asiana flight easily was hitting on crash).

As an aside--the whole reason HANS devices came about is that (after five-point harnesses came into being for racing) the speeds had gone up enough that a hard wreck was causing basilar skull fracture--basically, essentially the sort of "functional decapitation" injury that occurs with a proper hanging--because the damn skull kept going at 200mph when the rest of the body was stopped by the restraint.  (Even after HANS, there were enough injuries that the SAFER barrier was also invented to try to dissipate crash impact.  The combo of these HAS tended to make racing rather less deadly; most of the NASCAR fatalities over the past ten years were pre-HANS and/or pre-SAFER or resulted from vehicles going airborne, and the fatalities in IRL have been from cars either being T-boned by other cars or by going airborne ABOVE the SAFER barrier and catching the fence (a la Dan Wheldon).  I don't mention SAFER barriers, as an aside, because I really don't know of a good way to install one at an airport :D)
 
2013-07-09 09:55:42 PM  
We didn't wear seatbelts when I was a kid.  I still have a scar on my forehead from where my face broke the ashtray.

/cars used to have ashtrays in them
 
2013-07-09 10:01:28 PM  

xynix: The same reason you're asked to put your seats upright during take off and landing.. For other people. Maybe for you, but especially for other people.



Screw those people I paid for a seat that goes back!
 
2013-07-09 10:02:12 PM  
Why do you people have a problem with human pinball?  If you get 100,000 points, they add it on your gravestone.
 
2013-07-09 10:03:42 PM  

RoyBatty: Gyrfalcon: It still makes me laugh that we've just had a major air accident where virtually everyone walked away and ONLY two dead--and people are already biatching about how the seats should be redesigned and the seatbelts weren't safe enough, like this wasn't some insane miracle where everything pretty much worked like it should have.

We are so coddled as a species.

There were only two dead, but perhaps a couple of dozen with severe spinal injuries, and it's not clear what other sort of injuries they will never recover from.

At any point at all in the history of air traffic, someone could say, "we can freakin fly through the air at hundreds of miles an hour and you're complaining about a minuscule number of deaths?" And they would be right to the same extent you are.

It's clear from the video that the outcome could have been much worse if the aircraft was just a foor or so lower on impact, or if the cartwheeling had been at a different angle.

Aircraft are pretty darn safe, but if rare accidents were even more survivable by rotating the seats and there were few other costs or problems associated with that, I think I'd prefer to travel backwards.


That's true, I just find things like this funny. I also don't want to have to pay extra for barf bags because of motion sickness from traveling backwards. And you KNOW the airlines will be charging $5 per barf bag when old ladies can't sit "back to the engine" as they used to say.
 
2013-07-09 10:07:03 PM  

Dr Dreidel: RoyBatty: Aircraft are pretty darn safe, but if rare accidents were even more survivable by rotating the seats and there were few other costs or problems associated with that, I think I'd prefer to travel backwards.

What if airlines had to jack up fees because of all the extra barf bags?

Seriously, for the motion-sick, traveling backwards on an airplane is like rubbing poison ivy on an itchy red patch of skin. I took Dramamine and Xanax before my last flight and was still nauseous the whole 5-hour ride.


Yeah, I think that might a real reason it's a non-starter.

I sort of think that google cars might lead to backward facing front row passengers since it is safer and more social, or even side to side sitting passengers like on a pod at Disneyland since people might like to have some frontwards visibility and the additional safety of a google car would presumably make side to side seating more preferential to two rows of people facing forward.
 
2013-07-09 10:18:12 PM  
I think the seats should face back AND all planes should have open cargo doors at the back of the plane during takeoff so all non properly stowed electronics will exit the plane.  And it'd be biatchin to watch the ground drop away.  And who the hell would argue with flight attendants about putting on their seatbelt and sitting down when they are busy fearing for their life?
 
2013-07-09 10:25:04 PM  

SpdrJay: But if you jump up in the air right before impact you can cancel your momentum and walk away unscathed!


So that must've been why that young martial arts expert was walking and talking just fine.  Always keeping the tricks to themselves.

italie: CSB:

I was in a violent accident at 17 years old in a '67 Mustang equipped with only lap belts. While being alive was cool, spending the next 6 months learning to walk properly again was not.

//Not an argument for or against, just sharing the pain of lap belts.
///That's gonna leave a mark.


I know it is legal to not upgrade the safety equipment in cars, but why not do it.  A few years back, a guy heading home in his vintage T-bucket hot rod lost control on a curve just down the road from my house.  No seat belt at all, because the car was considered pre-1930 even after the other work done on it, and of course the tree did more damage to him than it did to the car.  The car barely shown any damage and was still drivable, whereas he died.
 
2013-07-09 10:27:28 PM  
as hard as some find it to connect 3 point seat belts in autos,imagine the delay when people try to figure out 5 point harness's.but i swore off flying years ago when the TSA was created. too much hassle. if i cant drive there,im not going. at least i have some small semblance of controlling my destiny. and im good with it. i dont need to go so far away that the only practical way is flying. feel bad for the folks who do. my brother flys every week for his job and has grown accustomed to it. not me.
 
2013-07-09 10:28:34 PM  

bingethinker: Tag must be for Submittard.




Done in one.
 
2013-07-09 10:29:33 PM  
those two girls who died falling out of the back of the plane..were they wearing seatbelts?
 
2013-07-09 10:31:13 PM  

alienated: RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]

Same as it works on roller coasters that go backwards.




www.socalevo.net

If we can save just one child, it's all worth it.
 
2013-07-09 10:44:34 PM  
 
2013-07-09 10:45:15 PM  
Oops. Wrong thread. Sorry.
 
2013-07-09 10:47:54 PM  
TARDMITTER here.  My point wasn't that passengers should not have been wearing seat belts.  The point was to parody the incredulity of the medical doctor; his befuddlement of the high number of spinal injuries sustained during this HORRIBLE FLAMING PLANE CRASH.

Doesn't matter if you're strapped in with a 5 point harness if you drive at a 100mph, off a cliff, into a 75ft ravine. 

Also, as the video shows, the plane is shot up into the air after crash landing and is slammed back into the ground.  If anything that was the part of the crash that probably caused the most damages to the passengers.
 
2013-07-09 11:13:36 PM  

RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)


I did an 1.5hr or so ride backwards once (it was a strange plane). NEVER AGAIN.  I felt sick the entire time (for hours afterward) and almost lost my lunch during landing.
I'm waiting for them to require a shoulder strap next.
 
2013-07-09 11:14:24 PM  
Pat Bedard, former Indy car driver and staff writer for Car and Driver, described in one of his columns his last race. After squeezing into the cockpit and getting the five-point harness latched-up by his crew chief (with some effort), he tested the restraint and told the chief, "Take it up 3/4s of an inch." Unbuckle, get out of cockpit, remove seat, grab wrench and make the requested adjustment. Back in the car, harness latched with even more effort, and another wiggle-check. This time he was satisfied that he was part of the car. Sometime during the race something went squirrelly, the car went in several directions at once, shedding parts (but not the driver) as designed, and he woke up two weeks later in the hospital. He said that, had that final adjustment not been made, he would've been more severely injured. He then went on to describe the minimal "restraint" provided by the lap/shoulder belt offered in passenger cars, particularly the freedom of motion the shoulder belt afforded so one could adjust the heater or radio or something, and its frequent inability to retract to an effective position. He said that if you could easily slip your hand under the belt it was too loose.

While there have been improvements in belt tensioners, the design is still a compromise. If the restraint system allows any free motion before it is called into play it can increase the possibility of injury. Most users find a properly-tensioned belt to be uncomfortable, leave it loose, and reduce or negate its effectiveness. The lap belt's purpose is to prevent the wearer from pitching forward and upwards out of the seat during sudden deceleration. In aircraft it keeps the wearer in the seat during abrupt vertical movements. That's about it.
 
2013-07-09 11:15:20 PM  
/insert theonion neck belt pic here
//sorry on mobile
 
2013-07-09 11:21:13 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Doctor: Asiana Flight 214 survivors have unusual pattern of spinal injuries

...unusual, because most people in plane crashes are USUALLY DEAD.


"But what if you're onboard that 1 in 1.2 million flights that ends up in an accident? Surprisingly, you're much more likely to walk away from an airline accident than you are to perish. In fact, a staggering 95.7 percent of people involved in plane crashes survive. Even in the most serious class of crashes, more than 76 percent survive [source: NTSB]."

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/big-question-what -a re-odds-of-surviving-plane-crash.htm
 
2013-07-09 11:32:22 PM  

Egoy3k: RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]

In ten years the accepted slang term for passenger airplane would be 'vomit comit'.


I've never been on an airplane but I think riding backwards just seems intuitively safer. Isn't that why the stewardesses do it? So they will be safe and able to help everyone else when stuff happens?
 
2013-07-09 11:33:18 PM  
What I thought of with the talk about preventing back injuries.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-09 11:36:02 PM  

Penoatle: Pfft.. Seatbelts kill more lives than they save..


"kill more lives" I like that
 
2013-07-09 11:37:57 PM  

Larva Lump:  He then went on to describe the minimal "restraint" provided by the lap/shoulder belt offered in passenger cars, particularly the freedom of motion the shoulder belt afforded so one could adjust the heater or radio or something, and its frequent inability to retract to an effective position. He said that if you could easily slip your hand under the belt it was too loose.

 ...Most users find a properly-tensioned belt to be uncomfortable, leave it loose, and reduce or negate its effectiveness.


Good post.  

\grew up in an age when seatbelt use wasn't all that commonplace and people [reluctantly] began to wear seatbelts only to keep from getting ticketed
\\personally, I prefer a tighter fitting seatbelt in my car
\\\ I and every passenger who has ever been in my car has been buckled up
 
2013-07-09 11:43:58 PM  
 
2013-07-09 11:47:39 PM  

RoyBatty: Dr Dreidel: RoyBatty: Aircraft are pretty darn safe, but if rare accidents were even more survivable by rotating the seats and there were few other costs or problems associated with that, I think I'd prefer to travel backwards.

What if airlines had to jack up fees because of all the extra barf bags?

Seriously, for the motion-sick, traveling backwards on an airplane is like rubbing poison ivy on an itchy red patch of skin. I took Dramamine and Xanax before my last flight and was still nauseous the whole 5-hour ride.

Yeah, I think that might a real reason it's a non-starter.

I sort of think that google cars might lead to backward facing front row passengers since it is safer and more social, or even side to side sitting passengers like on a pod at Disneyland since people might like to have some frontwards visibility and the additional safety of a google car would presumably make side to side seating more preferential to two rows of people facing forward.


Google cars, that's funny. We will never be able to build a database so error free as to allow driverless cars except on predetermined streets. And even then every state has different markings. Just let Google try to dictate to Indiana or Texas how to mark all their roads and construction zones to be machine readable for on the fly adjustment. Some places already can't get signs to tell the correct lane closed. Even with a technically perfect ride, it would rely on too many externalities to function for long in the real world.
 
2013-07-09 11:50:21 PM  

Rapmaster2000: We didn't wear seatbelts when I was a kid.  I still have a scar on my forehead from where my face broke the ashtray.

/cars used to have ashtrays in them


Didn't your mom put her arm out in time?
 
2013-07-09 11:52:49 PM  

Latinwolf: Subby's a Libertarian right?


Crap, the good joke is taken.
 
2013-07-09 11:54:51 PM  

gibbon1: A five point harness would be even better. With those most people would survive the crash, but not the usual fireball as burning jet fuel sprays throughout the cabin


If we've already got 5 point harnesses we should just give everyone ejection seats and parachutes.
 
2013-07-09 11:57:33 PM  

fluffy2097: gibbon1: A five point harness would be even better. With those most people would survive the crash, but not the usual fireball as burning jet fuel sprays throughout the cabin

If we've already got 5 point harnesses we should just give everyone ejection seats and parachutes.


No no, too tempting for when you're sitting next to the bratty kid, farting fat guy or annoying old lady who keeps yakking when you want to get some sleep: "Uh, which is my ejection seat button...oopsie!"
 
2013-07-10 12:03:12 AM  

namatad: The My Little Pony Killer: Alive with a hurt back is still alive.

alive with a crushed spine and never being able to walk again is still alive.

Unlike that poor girl who might have survived the crash but got killed by an emergency vehicle.


FWIW, it is yet to be determined if she was killed by an emergency vehicle.

She had injuries that appeared consistent with being run over, but she was seated in the same general area as the other fatality.  Since that victim was found outside the aircraft (apparently ejected during the crash), it is entirely possible if not likely that the second one was also ejected and possibly run over post-mortem.
 
2013-07-10 12:08:01 AM  

Egoy3k: RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]

In ten years the accepted slang term for passenger airplane would be 'vomit comit'.


The angle of attack is nose up. The seats would need a serious reverse angle to get to even for most of the flight, and you'd have a few people falling out on take off.

Also, on impact who know what's going to fly at your face in the middle of a crash.

The current arrangement is good enough for 99.99999% of the time. Crashes are extreme outliers. Lap belts are sufficient to keep people in place during turbulence, but three or four point belts may be an idea to explore in smaller aircraft.
 
2013-07-10 12:15:15 AM  

RoyBatty: alienated: RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]

Same as it works on roller coasters that go backwards.

By work, I meant more of how passengers would perceive it. Make takeoffs more queasy?

On backwards roller coasters you most likely (these days) have that big over the head bar, and on an airline that of course would never occur, nor would most passengers want a roller coaster like ride.

Facing the seats around is probably a non-starter - I like flying - I think I'd dislike facing backwards.


I would venture a guess you've never had a significant back injury.

Yeah, that's the only way to explain why you would say something that sounds so ignorant.

/haven't flown in over ten years.
//always hated it, much less enjoyed it.
///I'll stick to my bicycle thanks.
 
2013-07-10 12:23:11 AM  

RoyBatty: alienated: RoyBatty: I guess this crash is more evidence for having the seats face the rear of the plane (but who would like to ride like that?) (how would that work on takeoff?)

[i.imgur.com image 524x634]

Same as it works on roller coasters that go backwards.

By work, I meant more of how passengers would perceive it. Make takeoffs more queasy?

On backwards roller coasters you most likely (these days) have that big over the head bar, and on an airline that of course would never occur, nor would most passengers want a roller coaster like ride.

Facing the seats around is probably a non-starter - I like flying - I think I'd dislike facing backwards.


As a FA who often gets a rear facing jumpseat, I can deff say that you do feel things more. However, I do feel more secure during take off, but not so much in landing as you don't face the direction you are going in, and can't really see what's going on in the front.
 
2013-07-10 12:52:44 AM  
Would you rather survive a plane crash with a spinal injury because of your seatbelt or be tossed around the cabin and die?
 
2013-07-10 01:01:07 AM  
I want to know about the Altimeter, its Settings and Real Time adjustments

www.ahrtp.com

I've read the pilot had the glide slope all wrong, thousands of feet too high on Initial Approach, had to correct, essentially coasting in and driving the air craft down to make up for real elevation, and then realized he'd over-compensated, glide path wrong. Not enough air speed, idling engines did not spool up quickly enough and wham. Turned a 777 into a tail dragger.

Well and truly makes me want to know why his elevation was off and too high at the beginning of descent.
 
2013-07-10 01:26:25 AM  
Mr. Stumped Doctor, meet Mr. Forward Momentum.

/sheesh
 
2013-07-10 01:31:18 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: I want to know about the Altimeter, its Settings and Real Time adjustments

[www.ahrtp.com image 794x424]

I've read the pilot had the glide slope all wrong, thousands of feet too high on Initial Approach, had to correct, essentially coasting in and driving the air craft down to make up for real elevation, and then realized he'd over-compensated, glide path wrong. Not enough air speed, idling engines did not spool up quickly enough and wham. Turned a 777 into a tail dragger.

Well and truly makes me want to know why his elevation was off and too high at the beginning of descent.


Although it's way too early to even guess, I saw this and was reminded of a crash (many years back now) that occurred in the Alps after an icing incident; apparently the autopilot had been correcting for the slight but increasing effects of drag on the wings as ice accumulated, keeping the plane nominally fast and level enough until it was suddenly unable to compensate and then the alarms went off--and it was too late for the human pilots to correct before they hit the mountains. Now I'm curious as to whether something like this was involved, that the computer had been compensating for something the pilots were unaware of until they disengaged (like the would at landing) and found to their horror they had no time to fix something they needed another 10,000 feet to repair.
 
2013-07-10 02:26:10 AM  
I expect subbys to be this retarded, but doctors are supposed to be smart enough to tie their own shoes.
 
2013-07-10 02:47:21 AM  

Gyrfalcon: It still makes me laugh that we've just had a major air accident where virtually everyone walked away and ONLY two dead--and people are already biatching about how the seats should be redesigned and the seatbelts weren't safe enough, like this wasn't some insane miracle where everything pretty much worked like it should have.

We are so coddled as a species.


Which is why we are the dominate species on the planet. We fix shiat when it's broken and try to make things better.

We don't simply go, "Ah well, only 10,000 died of the plague this year, that's not bad." and give up on creating vaccinations.

 We are excellence orientated when it comes to surviving and thriving as a species. (We're not perfect by a long shot, but the effort is there.)
 
2013-07-10 03:04:43 AM  
It would have been more fun if that racist from Idaho told the Chinese lady to "shut that little zipper eye up before I slap him" then slap him.
 
2013-07-10 03:06:31 AM  

lack of warmth: I know it is legal to not upgrade the safety equipment in cars, but why not do it. A few years back, a guy heading home in his vintage T-bucket hot rod lost control on a curve just down the road from my house. No seat belt at all, because the car was considered pre-1930 even after the other work done on it, and of course the tree did more damage to him than it did to the car. The car barely shown any damage and was still drivable, whereas he died.


I have a family member who drives with their small dogs free in the car.  They expect to be able to sit in your lap in the front seat.  I loathe it.  I hold on to the dog's collar for dear life in the hopes I don't get a dog through the head if we have an accident.

Restrain your animals, people.

/Death by Jackapoo
 
2013-07-10 03:07:44 AM  
Gee. I wonder if fighter pilots and race car drivers wear seat belts, and if those designs are similar to an airplane lap belt, or for that matter a passenger car? Nope. They use a much better design. But it might cost $100 more a seat divided by the number of passengers to sit in that seat over the lifetime of the seat, to pay for that. I mean like 2 or 3 cents per passenger trip, maybe.  Obviously, this would be prohibitive, as would be the extra 10 seconds for a passenger to figure out how to use the more complex buckle.
 
2013-07-10 03:11:07 AM  

kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"


www.phawker.com
 
2013-07-10 03:36:17 AM  

LordOfThePings: kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"

[www.phawker.com image 670x720]


You know why that's not a real toy box? Cuz if it was, they'd all be naked.
 
2013-07-10 06:46:25 AM  
Any landing you walk away from is a good one.

The ones you run away screaming from are ok too.
 
2013-07-10 07:19:13 AM  
Yeah...stop suggesting multi-point seatbelts. All of these ideas have been tried be engineers that make these aircraft, and this was the decided "best" way to do it. There is, frankly, more at play than safety. People have a difficult enough time with just a lap belt on airplanes, but a three-point harness? Forget about it. 5-point even? Keep dreaming. In fact, I would argue that many more people would be killed because people aren't going to use a multi-point harness correctly. You must also factor in customer satisfaction. Sorry it has to come down to that as well, but in the end, an aircraft is a product and customers have to be happy. If you require that every person flying properly use a multi point harness (complete with neck brace), nobody is going to fly. It's a risk people take when they fly. And to be honest, the fact that only two people lost their lives in this accident is a major win in aircraft safety.
 
2013-07-10 07:24:14 AM  

kingoomieiii: "Oh no I yanked my back out when I slammed against the seatbelt"

vs

"Oh no we're all bouncing around in the plane on impact, snapping limbs against each other because there are no seatbelts"


Subby was evidently in a car accident without a car seat as a child. Too much head trauma.
 
2013-07-10 08:32:39 AM  
the Costs of the 5 p[oint seatbel6ts simply isnt worth the miniscule impact it would have. Fark it, you get on a plane, you assume some risk. don't like it, don't fly.
 
2013-07-10 08:37:51 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Wake up Sheeple!


you have to put SHEEPLE in caps.

and make sure to FOLLOW the MONEY!!!
 
2013-07-10 09:16:05 AM  
rear-facing seats:
i've flown in planes facing front (most flights), back (southwest airlines flight had some spots where seats faced each other, and the c141 i flew in had rear facing seats installed), sideways (c130 jump seats), and laying down on a blanket (last leg of the c17 flight back to arkansas from germany consisted of a load of 8 or 10 of us airforce reservists and some equipment...so essentially a huge open c17 cargo area)

i'm perfectly fine with rear-facing airplane seats. i experienced no discomfort. takeoff is slightly weird, but i didn't feel like falling. on the jumpseats i did tend to lean into the person next to me, but of course we were all leaning
 
2013-07-10 09:18:51 AM  

incrdbil: the Costs of the 5 p[oint seatbel6ts simply isnt worth the miniscule impact it would have. Fark it, you get on a plane, you assume some risk. don't like it, don't fly.


that's right, you bought your ticket, you knew what you were getting into!
 
2013-07-10 09:33:11 AM  
i.qkme.me

/got nothing
 
2013-07-10 09:52:52 AM  

mahill10: Yeah...stop suggesting multi-point seatbelts. All of these ideas have been tried be engineers that make these aircraft, and this was the decided "best" way to do it. There is, frankly, more at play than safety. People have a difficult enough time with just a lap belt on airplanes, but a three-point harness? Forget about it. 5-point even? Keep dreaming. In fact, I would argue that many more people would be killed because people aren't going to use a multi-point harness correctly. You must also factor in customer satisfaction. Sorry it has to come down to that as well, but in the end, an aircraft is a product and customers have to be happy. If you require that every person flying properly use a multi point harness (complete with neck brace), nobody is going to fly. It's a risk people take when they fly. And to be honest, the fact that only two people lost their lives in this accident is a major win in aircraft safety.


Hmmm. I wonder if the 777 pilot and co-pilot have seat belts with a design similar to a military pilot's or a race car driver's.  I'm sure they insist on whatever is best. Are passengers treated like valuable human beings, or cattle? Perhaps somewhere in between?
 
2013-07-10 09:53:52 AM  
Best ==> Most cost effective. Yeah, engineers DO that sort of calculation.
 
2013-07-10 10:06:12 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: umm, these seat belts always look like they are recycled out of vintage cars that were forced to upgrade to shoulder strap belts. just swap these relics out for over the shoulder and lap or, since you are in a farking airplane, install 5 point harnesses like a pilot has. One more case of cheap farking quality so some corp can save a few bucks while risking lives. shiat !! two hundred billion is not enough this year !! we need to make 20 extra grand, cancel the seat belt upgrade again !


Inertial reel belts won't work reliably in an airplane, they have to use the old fashioned ones.

Buggar: I think the seats should face back AND all planes should have open cargo doors at the back of the plane during takeoff so all non properly stowed electronics will exit the plane. And it'd be biatchin to watch the ground drop away. And who the hell would argue with flight attendants about putting on their seatbelt and sitting down when they are busy fearing for their life?


And they would have to sweep the runway after every takeoff.

Clemkadidlefark: I've read the pilot had the glide slope all wrong, thousands of feet too high on Initial Approach, had to correct, essentially coasting in and driving the air craft down to make up for real elevation, and then realized he'd over-compensated, glide path wrong. Not enough air speed, idling engines did not spool up quickly enough and wham. Turned a 777 into a tail dragger.

Well and truly makes me want to know why his elevation was off and too high at the beginning of descent.


Something I ran into from a pilot who flies the big birds into that airport:  The air is a bit strange on the approach, you normally end up having to lower power for a bit on the approach and then apply extra power later in order to stay on the glide slope.

That suggests a likely scenario here:  The pilot was behind.  He hit the freaky air but didn't pull power soon enough so he ended up above the glide slope.  He pulled too much power trying to compensate and once he was past that point and actually needed more power he again didn't react fast enough.  He got caught too low with his engines turning too slowly--he realized the problem and attempted a go-around but it was too late.  Jet engines take time to respond to the throttle and he didn't have enough of it.
 
2013-07-10 10:13:09 AM  

Jackson Herring: Manley said even among those who suffered mild spine trauma, he is struck by a pattern that shows how their upper bodies were flung forward and then backward over the lap belts that kept them in their seats and undoubtedly saved their lives.

what are you trying to do here submitter


To be honest, the lap belts haven't much to do with survivability in a plane crash. It is more the facing of the seat and the closeness of the seat in front of you.The safest seats in the plane?
www.tc.gc.ca
The Flight Attendant Jump Seat. Why? They face the rear of the plane. Doesn't look comfy, but in a crash it'd absorb the energy from the sudden stop. Second safest?
3.bp.blogspot.com
Riding Coach. The seats are closer together, and most are cushioned in the back, providing for a soft spot when your head and body lunge forward. Third safest?
blog.apex.aero
First/Business Class. While comfy in-flight, these seats in the upright position provide little to nothing in a crash. You'll go further in your seat in a crash, which in turn leads to worse injuries.
 
2013-07-10 01:04:29 PM  
Years back at a press conference regarding a fatal crash, a pesty reporter kept asking & re-asking the Trans. Board spokeman the exact cause of deaths in the disaster. The spokesman was a tired-looking old guy who'd obviously had a rough day in an intense setting. He told the jerk, "Look son, the plane stopped and the passengers didn't."
 
2013-07-10 01:53:32 PM  

MythDragon: [i.qkme.me image 500x668]

/got nothing


Three states require that all new school buses have seat belts.
 
2013-07-10 06:08:19 PM  
Mock26

Three states require that all new school buses have seat belts.

And unless they also require complete redesign of the seats to be more like passenger cars, where the belts can actually function properly (low across the hips), and effective attendants to see to it that the canned squirrels wear them correctly, if at all, said requirement may be worse than useless.

Also, a Canadian study back in the late '80s or early '90s concluded that rear-facing seats in school busses would reduce chances of injury, but again, without assurance of behaviour similar to that in the tests (HAH!) the improvement would be minimal.
 
Displayed 124 of 124 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report