snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 19 July 2015, 11:03 PM
TallGeekyGirl's Avatar
TallGeekyGirl TallGeekyGirl is offline
 
Join Date: 31 December 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 12,377
Icon105 Evil plane seat design would ruin whatever good remains of air travel

Quote:
Viewed from above, a sitting human being looks like a T-block from Tetris. The shoulders jut to the sides, and the legs protrude forward in a narrow line. It's not the most efficient shape in Tetris, a game in which the goal is to fill all space with Tetris blocks, but fortunately humans aren't pieces in a video game. Or they weren't, until now.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/9/892...anes-like-this
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 19 July 2015, 11:07 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

How would that work in an emergency evacuation?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 19 July 2015, 11:34 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,155
Default

Given the difference in the way stresses affect the human body based on which side they're interacting with, wouldn't it be inherently dangerous to be in the backward facing seats? Seems like you'd be at serious risk of whiplash in any kind of turbulence.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 19 July 2015, 11:36 PM
Not_Done_Living's Avatar
Not_Done_Living Not_Done_Living is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 3,735
Default

not sure how this adds seats. they are still three across. they take up the same amount of space. there isn't really any "slack' space in the current 3/2 or 3/3 config where everyone faces the same direction.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 19 July 2015, 11:38 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,791
Default

Why would the forces during turbulence be different for someone sitting backwards? Lots of flight attendants sit backwards every day. And in the event of a quick deceleration it seems the dangers of whiplash would be reduced.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20 July 2015, 12:37 AM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is online now
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Pink Pill View Post
How would that work in an emergency evacuation?
That was my thought as well. This is just a concept patented by a seat manufacturer. The actual number of seats seats you can legally put on a plane is dictated by the FAA's evacuation requirements, not just physical space. I have my doubts that they would approve this layout.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20 July 2015, 01:41 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Why would the forces during turbulence be different for someone sitting backwards? Lots of flight attendants sit backwards every day. And in the event of a quick deceleration it seems the dangers of whiplash would be reduced.
The forces aren't different, but having a backward facing seat means that you'll be pushed away from the seat during sudden deceleration. This will increase the stress on your neck, while sitting forward the seat absorbs some of the force.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20 July 2015, 01:51 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,371
Default

I think you have that backward. If you're sitting backward, you are pushed into the seat by "deceleration." If you're sitting forward-facing, you're pushed into the seat by forward acceleration.

There is evidence that rear facing seats may be much safer in crashes. http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-k...fer-146695292/ I'm pretty sure that's also the reason why infant seats are rear facing, and why parents are advised to keep kids rear facing as long as possible. Also, the article I just linked shows seats actually already offered that are rear facing.

Last edited by erwins; 20 July 2015 at 02:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20 July 2015, 02:04 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,791
Default

Thereís not really anything special about childrenís bodies that makes rear-facing safer for them but not for adults. So itís much much safer than facing forward.

I sit facing the rear quite often on trains and the only issue Iím aware of for comfort is that some people donít like it and some are more prone to motion sickness. One issue with plane seats is that itís more safe in emergency deceleration because the seat back absorbs the energy but forward-facing seat backs arenít made to absorb all that so they can be lighter and thinner. There are already backward-facing seats on some business-class and other planes but I guess they are built that much stronger.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20 July 2015, 02:06 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,949
Default

If the middle seat faces backward, that might make it even less desirable than it is now. A lot of people seem to have an aversion to sitting backward on a moving vehicle, and while you can't even feel that you're moving for most of a flight, the takeoff and landing can be especially anxiety-provoking for some.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 20 July 2015, 02:21 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,371
Default

Yep. That aversion, plus, I suppose a desire to see where one is going, are the reasons why kids do get turned around to forward facing eventually. The thing that is special about infants and small kids is that the forces matter more when they're tiny, and that being in car seats anyway, you can position them whichever way is preferred. But no, there isn't a magic size or age where suddenly facing forward becomes the safer option.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 20 July 2015, 07:56 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
The forces aren't different, but having a backward facing seat means that you'll be pushed away from the seat during sudden deceleration.
As erwins says, it's the other way round. Backward facing seats are actually safer in crashes (there are lots of backward facing seats in trains) - one reason they're not all backwards already is that people like to face the way they're going.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 20 July 2015, 08:17 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living View Post
not sure how this adds seats. they are still three across. they take up the same amount of space.
They're four across on one side, assuming the diagram is of a single-aisle plane.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:52 AM
Pinecone's Avatar
Pinecone Pinecone is offline
 
Join Date: 29 January 2008
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 2,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Thereís not really anything special about childrenís bodies that makes rear-facing safer for them but not for adults. So itís much much safer than facing forward.
It's more that travelling forward-facing is even more dangerous for babies and small children than for adults, since they have weaker neck muscles and proportionally bigger heads.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 20 July 2015, 02:54 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,791
Default

That's true.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 20 July 2015, 04:12 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is online now
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
They're four across on one side, assuming the diagram is of a single-aisle plane.
If that's the case then it would never get approved by the FAA. IIRC no one can be more than three seats from an aisle.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 20 July 2015, 05:17 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,699
Default

You RC:

ß25.817 Maximum number of seats abreast.
Quote:
On airplanes having only one passenger aisle, no more than three seats abreast may be placed on each side of the aisle in any one row.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 20 July 2015, 06:37 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 19,039
Glasses

Nitpick, GenYus, the correct and complete cite is 14 CFR 25.817. That missing title number can make a big difference if you're not using a direct link (it also irks the heck out of me when people cite [not refer] to COBRA. Do you know how many "cobr" acts there have been? A lot).

As for the OP article author's fear of butt-touching, well, I don't know where you put your hands when you're flying, but mine are plenty high enough to avoid butt-touching.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 20 July 2015, 06:38 PM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

Domestic only airplanes in countries that do not have these regualations can still use the seats.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 20 July 2015, 07:47 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post

As for the OP article author's fear of butt-touching, well, I don't know where you put your hands when you're flying, but mine are plenty high enough to avoid butt-touching.
I put my high as well, but that's because of the armrests. It looks like there aren't any with this design. But maybe that's just a flaw of the drawing rather than of the design.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb! Mickey Blue Amusement Bark 5 06 September 2013 08:17 AM
How media ruin a perfectly good story about a lost dog Floater Social Studies 2 14 January 2013 03:36 PM
Hasbro Memo for G3 My Little Pony design TB Tabby Fauxtography 11 28 December 2011 06:20 AM
On the brink of ruin snopes Food 4 08 June 2011 01:39 PM
Lexus design change snopes Automobiles 2 28 December 2006 09:48 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.