GUWonder

Cramming in more passengers into tighter fitting seats makes the flights less comfortable, but does it also increase the health and safety risks to passengers?

Apparently, there is an effort to have this sort of question fielded and examined by governmental authorities:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/safety...--finance.html

Evacuation times certainly could not have improved by cramming in more people and cabin bags into the same space as before, but the government hasn't been willing to test under more realistic conditions currently applicable to our flights:

GUWonder

The committee's recommendations would be non-binding, per the following link.

http://mashable.com/2015/04/14/slim-seats-airplane/

In the unfortunate event of an accident where fatalities occur due to evacuation problems arising from higher density passenger concentrations in the main cabin, it will be interesting to see if the airlines end up being held more liable for the deaths.

artemis

I'm glad to see this. With planes flying at or near capacity, and with a higher percentage of the flying public being older, obese, suffering from mobility problems or other disabilities, etc., it doesn't make sense to assume that evacuation tests carried out under conditions that don't accurately mimic a real-life flight situation are meaningful. There has to come a point where seat pitch becomes just too narrow to allow for a rapid evacuation.

V10

The point may already have come.

A few days ago I was given a choice by crew/ground staff to remain in my assigned seat (window seat of a row of 3, 30" pitch, blocked middle), or locate to another seat much further back. The aisle seat was occupied by a passenger with seriously reduced mobility and I was specifically informed that I would not be able to evacuate quickly in the (albeit very unlikely) event that there was a problem.

pittpanther

Wait, wait, wait.

Why were you given a choice? Shouldn't the airline have blocked off the middle and window seats, once the person with low mobility was assigned the aisle seat?

What kind of choice were you given? "In an emergency you will have a higher likelihood of dying of you stay here. And by the way if you do die, we will reduce the payments to your heirs because, after all, you chose to remain here..." This is why we need regulations to protect airlines from themselves.

eajusa

I would wonder the same thing.

Badenoch

It was nice for the FA to let you know but do the airlines actually expect you to wait in an emergency because someone else has seriously reduced mobility?

Neither I or a loved one are going to die in a burning aircraft because someone with seriously reduced mobility issues can't get out of the way.

Palal

Unless you have seriously reduced mobility, this shouldn't have an impact on your safety - you can always climb over the seat in front or behind you as is already expected from you

It's not the case in this A380 test though

FlyingUnderTheRadar

What will be interesting is going forward how many emergency exits will be required per passengers.

Squeezing more PAX into cabins may require additional exit doors to be installed. And given they will not be over the wings that means in addition to the required the exit row spacing there will be a seat missing to accommodate the required slide.

Also in addition to a certain number exit doors per total passengers I would be willing to bet that there is a requirement that passengers be minimum distance from an exit door.

As such, while adding two exit doors to rear of the aircraft may meet the total requirement PAX may be too far from it so two doors would be required to the front. So while they squeeze in two more rows, they may lose 4 two of those seats to exit doors.

SpannerSpinner

And with human waistlines in ever increasing proportions, those exit doors will need to be a few inches wider, and the exit row pitched an inch or two further apart to enable safe passage of the COS. Thus totally eliminating the extra seats they managed to cram in, so no net increase in self-loading cargo.

spd476

I've always wanted to use the slides, but don't want to be in a situation where they are needed . I just need to find a way to be a part of one of the evacuation tests. Although I don't know if I want to do that off of the upper deck of an A380. That looks pretty high up.

Palal

Airbus, at least, already accounts for this. If you look at EasyJet's A319s they all have 2 overwing exits instead of the standard 1 due to the high-density seating config.

cdn1

+1

It's like now things are being run on the "just get it in the air we'll deal with it later" sort of bare minimum safety standards. Do whatever to make the most money without regard for comfort.

The sad part is people trying to be ok with it, and to justify it by saying they're in it to make money.

piper28

I would guess that if the committee did some actual tests showing that the decreased pitch and more passengers reduced the ability to evacuate the plane, and something happened where this actually became a factor, at the very least it would give the lawyers a lot to work with when suing. I suspect that while it would technically be non-binding, the airlines would give serious consideration to any findings from such studies. Besides, it'd just give them an excuse to raise rates more.

Dadaluma83

Isn't the rule that all passengers have to be evacuated in 90 seconds or less using half the exits? As long as that can be done regardless of seat pitch no regulation is necessary.

Although most people can't seem to deplane in an orderly or quick fashion, I shudder to think about having to exit off the side of the runway after an aborted takeoff due to an engine fire using only half the exits due to the fire or other similar situation.