14 ms·

It's surprising that seatbelts have saved anyone at all, but that does seem to be the case. There was a flight to Hawaii where the roof ripped off and everyone

It's surprising that seatbelts have saved anyone at all, but that does seem to be the case. There was a flight to Hawaii where the roof ripped off and everyone saved except for 1 airline stewardess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 > All the passengers were in their seats and belted during depressurization. And the crash in SF where two people were ejected from their seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 > Neither victim was using her seatbelt. It is likely that these passengers would have remained in the cabin and survived if they had been wearing their seatbelts

ef4 9y ago
They save people from serious injury much more frequently than that. Extreme turbulence that can smash you against the ceiling happens not infrequently.
- ThinkingGuy 9y ago
  Not to mention the injuries prevented by your unsecured body not being thrown around and landing on another passenger.
madaxe_again 9y ago
There's also Juliane Koepcke, who survived as her row of seats autorotated, slowing her descent. Ironically, had the other passengers in her row been wearing their belts, she might not have survived, as the off-centre mass was key to her living. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke
mannykannot 9y ago
The article claims that "the primary goal of an aircraft seatbelt is not to save your life if the plane crashes; in that unlikely event, there’s not much in the way of conventional safety gear that would help you", which is too fatalistic. For example, in the crash of United 232 [1], 185 people (nearly two in three of those aboard) survived. It seems unlikely that anyone not strapped in would have done so. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalfLq9QG3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalfLq9QG3Y
- mikeash 9y ago
  Or look at the Asiana crash in San Francisco. One of the fatalities was thrown out of the plane and then crushed by a fire truck. I believe that was a seat belt failure, but how many others were kept safely in the plane because theirs worked? I wonder where this idea came from that plane crashes are essentially unsurvivable. It’s not even remotely close to correct!
  - mturmon 9y ago
    On HN recommendation, a couple of years ago I read "Beyond the Black Box: The Forensics of Airplane Crashes" by George Bibel. It's a book-length survey, from an engineering point of view, of the processes that cause crashes, and how they are tracked down and their root cause addressed. One of the messages of the book, repeated several times at various places, is that most crashes are survivable. Even the crashes that result in total loss of the aircraft tend to have significant numbers of survivors. One number from the Kindle preview is that, of the 53K passengers and crew on the 568 accidents on U.S. commercial craft from 1983-2000, there were 2280 fatalities (4.3%). This includes "severe turbulence" incidents as well as total-loss incidents, contributing to the low 4.3% figure. But still, over the same time period, of those 568 accidents, there were 26 "serious" accidents involving 2739 people, and about 55% of them survived. 19 of the accidents had some survivors, 7 did not. Of the 19, 66% of casualties were from trauma. Which would indicate that wearing the seat belt is a very good idea. The book has more statistics and breakdowns that point in a similar direction.
  - everdev 9y ago
    From my original comment: And the crash in SF where two people were ejected from their seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 > Neither victim was using her seatbelt. It is likely that these passengers would have remained in the cabin and survived if they had been wearing their seatbelts
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I must have a short attention span today. Apologies!

ef4 9y ago

They save people from serious injury much more frequently than that. Extreme turbulence that can smash you against the ceiling happens not infrequently.

ThinkingGuy 9y ago
Not to mention the injuries prevented by your unsecured body not being thrown around and landing on another passenger.

madaxe_again 9y ago

There's also Juliane Koepcke, who survived as her row of seats autorotated, slowing her descent. Ironically, had the other passengers in her row been wearing their belts, she might not have survived, as the off-centre mass was key to her living. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke

mannykannot 9y ago

The article claims that "the primary goal of an aircraft seatbelt is not to save your life if the plane crashes; in that unlikely event, there’s not much in the way of conventional safety gear that would help you", which is too fatalistic. For example, in the crash of United 232 [1], 185 people (nearly two in three of those aboard) survived. It seems unlikely that anyone not strapped in would have done so. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalfLq9QG3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalfLq9QG3Y

mikeash 9y ago
Or look at the Asiana crash in San Francisco. One of the fatalities was thrown out of the plane and then crushed by a fire truck. I believe that was a seat belt failure, but how many others were kept safely in the plane because theirs worked? I wonder where this idea came from that plane crashes are essentially unsurvivable. It’s not even remotely close to correct!
- mturmon 9y ago
  On HN recommendation, a couple of years ago I read "Beyond the Black Box: The Forensics of Airplane Crashes" by George Bibel. It's a book-length survey, from an engineering point of view, of the processes that cause crashes, and how they are tracked down and their root cause addressed. One of the messages of the book, repeated several times at various places, is that most crashes are survivable. Even the crashes that result in total loss of the aircraft tend to have significant numbers of survivors. One number from the Kindle preview is that, of the 53K passengers and crew on the 568 accidents on U.S. commercial craft from 1983-2000, there were 2280 fatalities (4.3%). This includes "severe turbulence" incidents as well as total-loss incidents, contributing to the low 4.3% figure. But still, over the same time period, of those 568 accidents, there were 26 "serious" accidents involving 2739 people, and about 55% of them survived. 19 of the accidents had some survivors, 7 did not. Of the 19, 66% of casualties were from trauma. Which would indicate that wearing the seat belt is a very good idea. The book has more statistics and breakdowns that point in a similar direction.
- everdev 9y ago
  From my original comment: And the crash in SF where two people were ejected from their seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 > Neither victim was using her seatbelt. It is likely that these passengers would have remained in the cabin and survived if they had been wearing their seatbelts
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I must have a short attention span today. Apologies!