Tweet
When severe turbulence strikes and people get injured because they don't have their seat belts on, I can understand the reason for the injuries. But how strong are seat belts on commercial aircraft, compared to those found in cars? Would it be possible, for example, for severe turbulence to break the seat belt in an airliner? And what about the seats?
-
-
UALdave,
Seatbelts are STRONG! bearing any 'wear and tear' on a seatbelt it is less likely to break than the seat mountings on the floor of the aircraft. In fact in many crashes seats with passengers still strapped in have 'departed' the aircraft.
They are V similar to car seatbelts in strength.
Hope this is what you were chasing
VAZ -
A quick look around the web found this: http://www.lowyusa.com/webbing/seat-belt-webbing
The weaker of their two top products has a tensile strength of 5500 lbs. That's the equivalent of 20G applied to a 275-lb. person. Not to sound too morbid, but the aircraft will break apart at an acceleration level much lower than 20G.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric LawComment
-
Seat belts, seats, anchor points and the floor itself are designed to resist a crash of some extent, a characteristic known as "crashworthiness".
If the turbulence was strong enough to break some of those, likely other more critical parts of the airplane (wings?) would have already broken.
The structure of the plane at great (wings included) are designed to support 2.5 Gs with a 50% of margin (3.75 Gs total). The "crashworthiness" standards used to require 9 Gs (now I think it's even more).
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
years ago i read an article that claimed that aircraft seat mounting bolts were many times weaker than those used in automobiles.Comment
-
I have no information to confirm or deny it, but it wouldn't surprise me.Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
Airplanes are not as crash-worthy as cars. You don't have shoulder harness for example. And if you installed them you would need to reinforce the seats, these bolts, and the floor itself.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
TeeVee you are correct (at least for ATP aircraft). It has lots to do with material type, material thickness, slotted grooves instead of 'fixed' holes etc.
However even if the mounts were as strong as those for cars the speeds and directional G forces for plane crashes usually far exceed those for cars, perhaps resulting in passengers being torn in two
I know that the capt and co-pilot usually have 4/5/6 point harnesses (similar to race car drivers) but have no idea if these are mounted in a better way than those of the passengers
VAZComment
-
-
in my mind, as a frequent flyer, my death is a forgone conclusion in the event of a crash.Originally posted by vaztr View PostTeeVee you are correct (at least for ATP aircraft). It has lots to do with material type, material thickness, slotted grooves instead of 'fixed' holes etc.
However even if the mounts were as strong as those for cars the speeds and directional G forces for plane crashes usually far exceed those for cars, perhaps resulting in passengers being torn in two
I know that the capt and co-pilot usually have 4/5/6 point harnesses (similar to race car drivers) but have no idea if these are mounted in a better way than those of the passengers
VAZ
in fact, i find it absolutely hysterical that AA/Boeing put airbags in seatbelts in first class seats on some aircraft
Comment
-
OK, so there's an event this summer in Las Vegas that I'd love to go to, but I worry about the turbulence-which can be pretty bad-between KDEN and KLAS. I also wonder if I would "feel" it more on a smaller CRJ then I would on a 737 or A320. Sort of like a yacht compared to an ocean liner.Comment
-
The same turbulence feels a little bit worse in airplanes with lower wing loading (pounds of airplane per square feet of wing area).Originally posted by UALdave View Post
A fully loaded 737 or A320 will have a slightly higher wing loading that a fully loaded CRJ, but then a fully loaded will likely have a slightly higher wing loading than a somehow light 737 or A320. If the route is the same, probably the CRJ will have much more % of fuel load than an 737 or A320.
In any event, all of the above is merely theoretical. The difference is small at best and other factors (such as speed and random chance) will have more effect than this.
When you say that you worry about the turbulence, I guess that's a personal fear (phobia) that doesn't have anything to do with a rational fear that something might happen to the plane, right?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
-
Ok, so you hate turbulence and maybe have some issues with sitting in a really thin, light weight aluminum tube shooting through the air at hundreds of miles per hour with no control over the situation whatsoever...Originally posted by UALdave View Post
And to hell with statistics...bumps and bending/flapping wings...and the plane pitching "out of control"...it can be a white-knuckle, say-a-prayer situation.
While your thoughts aren't valid (see bold font), I won't label you as a 'nut job' but will label you as a 'FOFfie'.
After about three trips to KLAS and the same number to KDEN and a few other trips in mountanous areas, I wouldn't rate the turbulence as all that special compared to anywhere else.
I get it- the mountains disrupt airflow and all, but my worst rides have much had more to do with weather than terrain/location.
Perhaps an expensive, adult alcho-beverage before / during the flight is the solution- because those seat belts are really only designed to keep you from floating upwards in negative G's...if things get serious, the whole pane (including your seat belt mounts) is coming apart!Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
perhaps your best posting ever!Originally posted by 3WE View Post
here's my take on the difference from a frequent flyer's perspective.
in comparatively larger aircraft such as the 737, the experience is somewhat softer, less harsh. the bumps are there as are the whoops, they just don't feel as harsh.
i've flown RJ's 100s of times in all sorts of weather, and fly in a challenger 300 fairly often. although the challenger flies north of 41,000 so most weather is well below you, the turbulence feeling is the same as an RJ. bumps feel a bit harsher but not so that it would make a normal person pucker.Comment
-
I just find it somewhat strange that someone with a handle like UALDave (which would indicate at least somewhat of an aviation enthusiast, specifically a UAL enthusiast) would be concerned enough about chop to inquire about seat belt strength.Originally posted by 3WE View PostComment
Comment